Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Liverpool University Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill (King's Consent signified), Bill read the Third time, and passed.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Surrey County Council Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Bacup Corporation Bill [Lords],

Rotherham Rural District Council Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

YORK CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the York Corporation Act, 1924, relating to the York Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Mr. Parkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Public Works Facilities Scheme (West Surrey Water) Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time-To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

AIR MAIL SERVICE (BOMBAY).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a further statement with reference to the Bombay-Karachi air route?

Major GRAHAM POLE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any progress has been made towards enabling Bombay to take fuller advantage of the air-mail service between this country and India by the institution of a regular air-mail service between Bombay and Delhi or Karachi; and whether any definite proposals are under consideration by the Government of India towards this end?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The Government of India hope that it will be possible to provide au air mail service for Bombay at a date not long after the inauguration of the Karachi-Calcutta sector as a State air service. The technical details involved are under investigation in India. It has not yet been decided whether the service should be operated as a shuttle service from Jodhpur to Bombay or as a more direct connection from Karachi to Bombay.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say what company will run the service, or will it be run by the Government?

Mr. BENN: I imagine it will be run by the Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are they considering a flying boat service as well from Karachi to Bombay?

Mr. BENN: I am not sure, but, inasmuch as they have under consideration the possibility of a service from Jodhpur to Bombay, I imagine that it is aeroplanes.

BRITISH GOODS (BOYCOTT AND EXPORT).

Sir GERALD HURST: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will obtain and publish a report upon the picketing methods which have been practised in the chief markets of India since March last in relation to the economic boycott of British cotton goods?

Mr. BENN: The Government of India recently reported that picketing was much reduced, but that there were signs of its revival in some places; that complaints of objectionable methods were decreasing but that they were still receiving a few; and that with occasional and local exceptions the picketing was unaggressive. I shall be happy to give further information as I receive it.

Sir G. HURST: Would it not be a good thing to stop picketing altogether?

Mr. BENN: There is nothing that hinders the operation of the ordinary law in India at the present time.

Sir G. HURST: Then does the right hon. Gentleman know why the ordinary-law in regard to picketing is not put into force?

Mr. BENN: The ordinary law is being put into force.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the reports in to-day's Press regarding the increased peaceful character of the picketing in India?

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the same amount of picketing being exercised against Japanese goods?

Mr. BENN: I nnderstand that the movement which is in progress is against all foreign goods.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is it against all foreign goods and not particularly against ours?

Mr. BENN: Oh, yes. I believe the discriminatory element in the campaign has ceased.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any meeting of the agency company has been held since 18th March; and whether he has any recent information which he can give to the House regarding the operations of this company?

Mr. BENN: I understand that a meeting of the committee appointed to introduce the scheme was held on the 30ti. April. The results of the meeting were reported in the "Times" of the 4th May. I have no reason for doubting the substantial correctnes of the report.

Mr. HACKING: Is it a fact that the Bombay millowners have subscribed to this company more than £26,000?

Mr. BENN: There was a statement in the "Times" which I think was substantially accurate, but whether it went as far as saying that the money had been subscribed, I am not quite sure.

Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to find out whether that is correct or not?

Mr. BENN: All the information that I can properly be seized of I have put immediately at the service of the House.

Sir G. HURST: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the resolution, a copy of which was sent to him, passed on 5th May at a meeting of members of the Manchester Royal Exchange, urging His Majesty's Government to take action in respect of the Indian boycott and the Indian import duties; and what action, if any, His Majesty's Government intend to take on these matters?

Sir W. BRASS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the resolution, a copy of which has been sent to him, passed at the protest meeting held on the Manchester Royal Exchange, on 5th May last, in connection with the boycott of Lancashire cotton goods in India; and whether he has consulted with the Government of India as to what steps should be taken to put an end to the picketing which is still taking place, in violation of the agreement recently made by the late Viceroy?

Mr. REMER: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has considered the resolution passed on the Royal Exchange, Manchester, on Tuesday, 5th May, a copy of which was sent to him; and if he has communicated this resolution to the Government of India?

Colonel BROADBENT: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Gandhi and the Congress party are now working to prevent British cloth from ever again being permitted to enter India, he will take steps to suppress those forms of picketing which violate the terms of the agreement made by the late Viceroy?

Mr. BENN: The resolution in question has already been communicated to the Government of India. As to the import duties, so far as was consistent with the Fiscal Autonomy Convention, action has already been taken. On the question of the boycott, I explained on 4th May that if breaches of the agreement were brought to my notice, they should be immediately investigated.

Sir W. BRASS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of Question No. 17, where I have asked
what steps he proposes to take to put an end to the boycott.

Mr. BENN: The first step is to investigate complaints, and that is what we are doing.

Sir W. BRASS: But, having done that, I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has approached the Government of India to ask them what steps they propose to take to end the boycott?

Mr. BENN: When they have investigated the complaint, if there is reason to suppose that it is well founded, the necessary action will be taken.

Sir W. BRASS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not propose to approach the Government of India?

TARIFF (COTTON GOODS).

Sir G. HURST: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will obtain and publish a report upon the effect, down to the present date, of the last increase in the Indian tariff on British cotton goods upon the importation of such goods into India?

Mr. BENN: Apart from the fact that a very short period has intervened since the Indian tariff on cotton goods was last increased, I doubt whether it would be possible to disentangle the effect of the tariff from other disturbing causes.

FEDERAL STRUCTURE COMMITTEE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now-state the names of the proposed Federal Structure Committee; the terms of reference, if any, and when it will be meeting?

Mr. BENN: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication when he will be in a position to make a statement on this point?

Mr. BENN: Naturally, the moment that our plans are more mature and ready for publication, the House will be informed.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman bearing in mind the very special reasons for including women in the Federal Structure Committee?

Mr. BENN: The question of the personnel is being considered.

RIOTS, CAWNPORE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any censorship was exercised on the first reports that were sent to the Press of the Cawnpore riots; and, if so, for what reasons it was imposed?

Mr. BENN: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) for his courtesy in postponing a similar question from last Wednesday. This has given me time to make careful inquiries. The Collector of Cawnpore exercised his discretion to cut out from two telegrams addressed to local newspapers or organisations passages of an alarmist nature. No message to this country was affected in any way.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the earlier telegrams minimising the severity of the events in Cawnpore were in no wise affected by Tress censorship at all?

Mr. BENN: I have answered the question most specifically. No message to this country was affected in any way.

Earl WINTERTON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India if the inquiry into the recent outbreak at Cawnpore has now been concluded; and when the report will be available for this House?

Major POLE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will take all possible steps to accelerate the progress of the commission of inquiry upon the Cawnpore riots in preparing their report, in order to prevent the dissemination of unfounded accounts of the events?

Mr. BENN: I am informed that the Commission of Inquiry has completed the taking of evidence and will submit its report to the Local Government, it is hoped, in about 10 days. As to the latter part of Question 26: My attention has been called to many extracts from letters and other sources giving the accounts of eye-witnesses of the disturbances in Cawnpore. I have no means, at this stage, of judging the truth of the statements made, but I would point out that the proper course for the persons concerned was to submit their evidence to the public inquiry. It will be impossible to express any reliable opinion either as
to the facts or the causes of the riots until the report of the commission has been received.

INDIAN AIR FORCE.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to form an Indian Air Force on a military basis; whether an all-Indian force is contemplated; and what is to be its proposed strength?

Mr. BENN: What is contemplated is the creation of an Indian Air Force as a new and separate service. It will be formed on a combatant basis under the command of the Air Officer Commanding in India, with the prospect that in due time it will share responsibility for the air defence of India with the Royal Air Force establishment in India. It will be manned exclusively by Indian officers and airmen, although provision will be made for the attachment of Royal Air Force officers and non-commissioner officers to supervise and assist in the development of the force in its early stages. It will consist of one flight, with a small headquarters' staff, in the first instance, with the prospect of expansion to a full squadron later.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged. May I ask whether, in connection with this force, it is proposed to start a college in India for the training of these Indian air officers?

Mr. BENN: That is a rather separate question, of which I should like to have notice.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the present rate of recruitment of Indian officers at Cranwell it will be a very long time before this corps can be efficiently manned?

GOVERNMENT POLICY (PUBLICITY).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON-BROWN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken by the Government of India to issue information to the people of India as regards their policy and intentions so as to counter the propaganda spread by Congress and Communists all over the country?

Mr. FREEMAN: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the reference in the latter part of this question, in which the Congress and the Communists are so linked together as to imply that the Indian National Congress is a Communist body, or, alternatively, that the Communists are working side by side with the members of the Indian National Congress for this purpose?

Mr. SPEAKER: I saw nothing irregular in the question.

Mr. FREEMAN: Might I suggest that these insinuations might do incalculable harm in India at a time when peaceful negotiations are going on, and whether this question might not be—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think any insinuation is made.

Brigadier-General BROWN: On the point of Order. Is it not perfectly true and well known that the Congress has issued many seditious pamphlets?

Mr. BENN: It is the policy of the Government of India and of the Provincial Administrations, to which they give effect in accordance with the requirements of the moment, both to make known Government policy and to correct misstatements.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not possible by means of aeroplanes to drop literature in the vernacular in the villages, or otherwise to put the Government case in the way that others are allowed to put their case?

Mr. BENN: I think the best propaganda is to push forward with the implementing of British pledges.

Mr. SMITHERS: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the policy dictated from Russia, and published in the "Pravda," of—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech

SWEDISH MATCHES (PRICES).

Major POLE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give information in regard to the result of the inquiry made by the Government of India as the result of the complaints made by the Indian Match
Manufacturers' Association alleging price-cutting by the Swedish Match Trust?

Mr. BENN: No, Sir, I have no information.

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that certain local governments in India applied to the Government of India to issue an ordinance empowering them to withhold monetary grants-in-aid in order to check seditious activities by district boards and municipalities; and for what reason this suggestion was not adopted?

Mr. BENN: I think the hon. and gallant Member has been misinformed. No ordinance with the object indicated in his question has been under consideration; nor, I understand, would an ordinance be required to secure that object.

IRON AND STEEL IMPORTS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India the total import of iron and steel into India during 1930; how much was from English and how much from foreign sources; and how these figures compare with those for 1913?

Mr. BENN: As the reply contains a statistical table I am circulating it.

Following is the reply:

The following statement gives the figures for 1913–14 and 1929–30 (the latest year for which figures are available).


—
1913–14.
1929–30.


From the United Kingdom.
Rs.11,18,14,000
Rs.10,18,29,943


Tons 611,286
Tons 486,138


From all other countries.
Rs.4,82,65,000
Rs.7,02,33,016


Tons 406,962
Tons 486,747

CONFERENCE (RESERVED SUBJECTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made with the subjects left over for further discussion and necessary action from the last Round
Table Conference, and particularly the establishment in India of training colleges for the Army?

Mr. BENN: The Government of India have appointed a committee to work out the details for the establishment of a training college for the Army, as recommended at the Conference. As regards other matters, the Government of India intend very shortly to issue a comprehensive statement of the preparatory work now in progress or in immediate contemplation, and it would be convenient if my hon. and gallant Friend would await this.

BURMA.

Earl WINTERTON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India the latest information in regard to the armed rising in Burma; how many casualties have occurred to date among the armed forces of the Crown and the rebels, respectively: and how many rebels have been taken prisoner?

Mr. HANNON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will make a full statement on the present situation of the rebellion in Burma; and if he can say how far local disturbance has originated from the activities of the General Council of Burma Association?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the persistence of revolutionary movements in Burma, with their accompanying loss of life, he will consider the desirability of organising larger-scale military operations to re-establish tranquility?

Mr. BENN: I am circulating a statement giving my latest information up to the week end.
With regard to the second part of question No. 8, the Headquarters of the General Council of Burmese Associations have not been directly implicated in the rebellion.
As to Question No. 23, troops are being posted at Meiktila, Shwebo, and Yenang Yaung as a precautionary measure.
Another battalion of Infantry has been summoned from India and will arrive this week. It will be utilised according to the developments of the situation.

Sir W. BRASS: On a point of Order. When these questions are put down separately, would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer specifically each one, instead of reading the answers together?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a valuable saving of time to answer them together.

Earl WINTERTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the second part of Question 21?

Mr. BENN: In order to save the time of the House, I am circulating a rather long statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Let us have it."] I will gladly do so, but it is a very long statement.
The number of rebels killed since the beginning of the rebellion is not accurately known, but is probably over 1,000. About 2,000 have been captured. This total includes villagers rounded up on suspicion, of whom the majority have been released. Casualties on the Government side are being collected and are not yet known with complete accuracy. One District Superintendent of Police, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, and an Inspector have been killed or are missing, believed killed, and one District Superintendent of Police, two British officers, one surgeon, one Subadar wounded, of other ranks about 15 have been killed and small number wounded. The number of headman and villagers killed by rebels is probably about 100. The only European killed was Mr. Austin, the District Superintendent of Police.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that, between Whitsuntide and the end of the Session, the Government will be asked to give a discussion on this matter and Cawnpore, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible, through the medium of a dispatch from the Government of India, to have a full and detailed account of this rebellion or outbreak, and the reasons which the Government ascribe to it, so that the House may be in possession of full information before the Debate?

Mr. BENN: In deference to the House, I sent rather long telegrams, and I have had long replies, but I am grateful to the Noble Lord for his suggestion, and I will consider getting a full written account for the information of the House.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: With regard to the latter part of Question 23, does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate intensified trouble out there in view of further armed forces moving?

Mr. BROCKWAY: When the right hon. Gentleman is making his inquiry, will he examine whether there are economic and political causes for these events?

Mr. BENN: Certainly, that will be closely examined.

Following is the statement:

Since the statement circulated on the 27th April the situation in the Tharrawaddy, Insein, and Henzada districts has continued to improve. The rebels are avoiding contact with Government forces, but two or three large gangs are still believed to exist, and to be hiding in the jungles. Columns of Government forces are endeavouring to hunt down these gangs. The principal trouble in these three districts is the number of small dacoities, carried out by small gangs. These are becoming less numerous in Tharrawaddy and Insein but are still frequent in Henzada.

In Thayetmyo District Kama township was reported on the 7th May to be still in a state of armed insurrection, but the rebels have now retired to the inaccessible country in the south west of the district, and it has not yet been possible to get into contact with them.

The most important recent event is a rising in the Prome District, to the east of the Irrawaddy River. The district superintendent of police, Mr. W. H. Austin, with 10 civil police, was attacked by about 60 rebels on the 5th May while resting at a village on the way to investigate a reported dacoity. Seven of the party, including Mr. Austin and an inspector of police, were either killed or are missing, and it is feared were killed. A party of military police subsequently met and dispersed the rebels after inflicting casualties. The situation in Prome District is still uncertain, but the rebellion is said to be confined to about four villages. Further military police and troops have been sent to Prome.

In view of the possibility of a rising in the dry zone of Upper Burma during the rains, when operations are impossible in Lower Burma, troops are being posted at
Meiktila Shwebo and Yenang Yaung. One more battalion of Indian infantry is coming from India this week, and will be utilised according to development of situation.

The forces at present in operation against rebels in all districts are 1,100 military police and two battalions of infantry.

A complicating factor in the situation as the spread of communal feeling against Indians in Lower Burma. Precautionary measures are being taken to deal with any eventualities.

Mr. FREEMAN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can yet make any statement as to the carrying on of the proposals of the Round Table Conference for the future government of Burma?

Mr. BENN: No, Sir. The matter is still under consideration.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is nearly five months since a decision was made by the Government, and will not many of the difficulties experienced in the last few questions be avoided if this matter can be hastened?

Mr. BENN: Haste is very desirable, but so, also, is judgment.

GOVERNMENT LOANS.

Mr. REMER (for Mr. HANNON): 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India the aggregate amount of the loans raised in this country at the instance of the Government of India as at the latest appropriate date; if all those issues have been devoted to the purposes of development in India without any restriction or condition; and if any proposals for further loans are now pending?

Mr. BENN: The total amount of the debt incurred on behalf of the Government of India in this country and outstanding on the 31st March last, was £387,900,000. Of this amount, £265,500,000 has been allocated to productive development in India—mainly railways—while the balance represents debt incurred for the general purposes of the Government of India. I must decline to furnish any information regarding the last part of the question.

Mr. SMITHERS: Do the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman represent the nominal value, or the present market value?

Mr. BENN: I imagine that it is the nominal value.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC VISAS.

Mr. DAY: 27.
asked the Secretary or State for Foreign Affairs the number of diplomatic visas granted by the Foreign Office for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date to members of the foreign embassies in Great Britain?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The number of diplomatic visas granted by the Foreign Office during the 12 months ending the 30th of April last to members of foreign embassies and legations in London was 289.

Mr. DAY: Are women and children included?

Mr. HENDERSON: I take it that it includes all the staffs and their families.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Which embassy had most?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now given further consideration to the proposal of appointing a committee to take the evidence of certain persons who have lately been in Russia in regard to labour conditions prevailing in the Russian timber trade; and whether he can give any information to the House on the present conditions?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I stated in my reply to a similar question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) on the 11th of February last, no useful purpose could or would in my opinion be achieved by the appointment of such a Committee. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Sir K. WOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries and put the House in possession of the facts regarding the present situation?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have been giving the House all the information at my disposal; I will go into this question as fully as I can.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Would the right hon. Gentleman turn down an inquiry under the Merchandise Marks Acts for the reasons he has given?

DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that Lord Goschen and the other British members of sub-committee B of the Anglo-Soviet Joint Committee, which is considering the claims of British citizens against the Soviet Government, at their meeting on Tuesday last, the 5th May, decided that further progress was impossible in view of the attitude adopted by the Soviet delegates; if he has received any report indicating in what way the attitude which the Soviet delegates adopted with reference to British claims makes further progress impossible; and what action the Government now propose to take in the matter?

Mr. SMITHERS: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the breakdown of negotiations on sub-committee B of the Russian Debts and Claims Committee, and in view of the fact that the British representatives are unpaid, he will now dissolve this committee and release the British delegates from their duties on it; and will he consider reducing the staff at Cornwall House who are dealing with this matter?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the negotiations in regard to the settlement of the various debts outstanding between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Great Britain?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The debt negotiations are still proceeding. I am glad to have this opportunity to correct misapprehensions which appear to have arisen from a statement published in certain organs of the Press on the 7th of May regarding Lord Goschen's Com-
mittee. The committee decided at the outset that no information should be given to the Press by either side except in the form of agreed official communiqués. The statement of the 7th of May was unofficial and inaccurate. I am informed that sub-committee B is reporting the present position in their work to the main committee, which will meet shortly. I uderstand, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that no question arises of reducing the present staff at Cornwall House, who are dealing with Russian claims; they are few in number, and are largely employed in correspondence with persons interested in Russian debts and claims.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the fact that some £250,000,000 of British money is concerned, and that this committee has been sitting for eight months, does not the right hon. Gentleman think the House is entitled to know whether the Soviet representatives have agreed in principle to the payment of compensation?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already tried to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to his question.

Sir K. WOOD: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman denies that this sub-committee have already decided that further progress would be impossible in view of the attitude of the Soviet?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, I deny it so far as the information at my disposal goes.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman employ some of the staff dismissed from Arcos?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

DISTURBANCES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the recent disturbances in Egypt; and whether any special precautions have been taken for the protection of British interests?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: During an attempt to hold a political demonstration at Beni Suef on the 3rd of May, a clash occurred between demonstrators and the police. Fifteen police were in-
jured, and six of the demonstrators were killed and three wounded. No special precautions have hitherto been necessary for the protection of British interests.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: May the House take it for granted that the European Bureau of Public Security is functioning as usual?

Mr. HENDERSON: As far as I am aware it is, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will get full information.

NILE IRRIGATION SCHEME.

Mr. SANDHAM: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has contributed or is contributing to the Nile irrigation schemes; if so, how much; what is the total cost of the scheme; and when it is anticipated it will be completed?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Government have not contributed, and are not contributing, to any Nile irrigation scheme.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any negotiations are in progress between His Majesty's Government and Abyssinia regarding the waters of Lage Tsana?

Mr. HENDERSON: Surely I must have notice of a question like that. It does not arise out of the answer.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.

Sir K. WOOD: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a further statement concerning extra-territoriality, and particularly as to the action of the Chinese Government concerning fresh regulations governing the adjudication of cases in which foreign nationals would be amenable to Chinese courts?

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay papers relating to the negotiations on extraterritoriality with the Chinese Government?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Since my statement last Wednesday, Sir Miles Lamp-son reports that the Chinese Government issued on the 4th of May a mandate applying unilaterally certain arrangements for the exercise of jurisdiction over foreigners to take effect as from the 1st of January, 1932. The mandate has not yet been officially communicated to His Majesty's Minister, and I have not received the authentic text. As I anticipated might be the case in my statement of last Wednesday, negotiations are still in progress, and, in these circumstances, I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), will agree that it would be inadvisable to lay papers at this juncture.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the issue of a mandate makes a difference in the situation, which would justify him in laying before the House the information that he has with regard to past negotiations?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, I think that it would be highly undesirable. I hinted last Wednesday that I thought the negotiations had not been finally broken off. I have already given the House an undertaking that, if the proposals result in a treaty, a full Debate will be opportune when it comes up for ratification.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how this important statement affecting a large number of nationals of other countries was communicated to the Press, but not to the various foreign secretaries, like himself, who were concerned?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know that I can interfere with how another Government give out their information.

Sir K. WOOD: Is that a friendly way of dealing with another country?

Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that before ratification is made we shall have a general Debate?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already answered that question.

GIRL SLAVES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if
he has any information with regard to recent regulations affecting the status of girl slaves in China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. Member will find some information on this subject on page 71 of Command Paper 3424 of 1929. No more recent information has reached the Foreign Office.

Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the authenticity or otherwise of the' statement in the "Times" newspaper last week to the effect that two edicts abolishing the state of slavery in China had been issued?

Mr. HENDERSON: That information has not reached me, and I am afraid that I cannot give myself up to following these newspaper statements.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (COMMITTEE).

Mr. BROCKWAY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to seek a three-party agreement regarding the proposals to be made by the British Government at the World Disarmament Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): In accordance with a precedent followed on several previous occasions, His Majesty's Government have invited the other parties to be represented on the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence which is engaged on the consideration of problems connected with the forthcoming Disarmament Conference. The ultimate responsibility for the policy decided on will, of course, rest with His Majesty's Government.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Mosley group?

Oral Answers to Questions — MADEIRA (REFUGEES).

Commander SOUTHBY: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps it is proposed to take with regard to the refugees from the late revolutionary forces in Madeira who are now on board His Majesty's Ship "Curlew"?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: These refugees went ashore voluntarily at Funchal on the 7th of May, an assurance having been
given to His Majesty's Government by the Portuguese Government that their lives would be spared. His Majesty's Ship "Curlew" left next day.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who will pay the expenses of these persons during their stay on board?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, I am afraid I cannot, but, if the hon. and gallant Member is very anxious to know about the expenses and will put down a question, I will inquire.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Sir A. KNOX: 41.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department which three countries were the largest importers of Soviet produce in 1930 and from which three countries the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics imported most goods?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): According to the trade returns of the Soviet Union, the countries to which exports from that country were greatest in value were the United Kingdom (£29,600,000), Germany (£21,700,000), and Persia (£6,400,000), and the countries from which imports were greatest in value were the United States of America (£28,000,000), Germany (£26,600,000), and the United Kingdom (£8,500,000).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Have the Soviet Government expressed their gratitude to this country?

Sir K. WOOD: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the new decree of the council of people's commissars limiting the trading rights of foreign firms and companies within Soviet Russia and, particularly, that all contracts made by British and other firms without the permission of the commissariat are invalid; and whether he proposes to make any representations in the matter to the Soviet Government?

Mr. GILLETT: I have seen references to this decree in the Press, but have not yet received a copy of the full text. It is only on receipt of this that it will be
possible to judge whether any action is called for on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman make some inquiries, so that he may, perhaps, be able to give me an answer?

Mr. GILLETT: I will inquire again shortly as to whether the decree has been received.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would not this be a breach of the Trade Agreement, if the facts are as stated in the question; and does not the hon. Gentleman think it urgent that representations should be made?

Mr. GILLETT: I cannot say anything until I have seen what the decree is.

FOREIGN TRADE (PREFERENCES).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 42.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, whether any overseas Governments outside the British Empire exercise contract preferences in favour of British goods?

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid I have no information on this point.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (COMMITTEE).

Mr. HACKING: 43.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the committee which, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Chelmsford Committee, is to be appointed to consider the acquisition of a site and the erection of permanent buildings for the London section of the British Industries Fair has yet been formally constituted; and, if so, whether he can announce the names of its members and the terms of reference?

Mr. GILLETT: A committee has now been appointed to consider and report how permanent accommodation for the London section of the British Industries Fair could be provided and financed on a self-supporting basis, and to formulate definite proposals.
The constitution of the committee is as follows:—

Sir Gilbert Garnsey, Chairman.
Mr. John Beard (formerly President of the Trades Union Congress General Council).
Lord Bethell.
808
Sir Robert Donald.
Mr. F. W. Hunt (Valuer to the London County Council).
Mr. Wm. Leitch (Assistant Secretary, His Majesty's Office of Works).
Mr. G. H. Locock (Assistant Director of the Federation of British Industries).
Sir Sydney Skinner (President of the Incorporated Association of Retail Distributors).
Mr. Claude Taylor (Department of Overseas Trade, and Secretary of the British Industries Fair).
Sir Gilbert Vyle (Past President, Association of British Chambers of Commerce).

The secretary of the committee is Mr. G. H. Meadmore, Department of Overseas Trade.

Mr. HACKING: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the first meeting will be held?

Mr. GILLETT: I do not know the exact date, but I understand that the chairman hopes to put the whole proceedings through as rapidly as possible?

Mr. BROCKWAY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider adding to this committee a representative of the co-operative movement?

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid it is too late to do so. It would delay the meeting of the committee.

FISCAL POLICY.

Mr. SMITHERS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister the names of the organisations from whom he has received communications during the past 12 months urging a greater measure of protection for British industry?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have received communications from various bodies and persons from time to time on the subject of protective duties, and so, no doubt, have many of my colleagues, but I do not think that the expenditure of time involved in getting out a list as suggested by the hon. Member would be justified.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask whether any of these communications have come from the trade unions?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, I could not answer that question definitely, but to the best of my knowledge, no.

Mr. McSHANE: Is it not true that the more these names change the more they are the same thing?

DIFFERENTIAL SHIPPING FREIGHTS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what foreign countries encouraged their agricultural exports by means of differential freight rates; and what is the nature of the traffic thus assisted?

Mr. GILLETT: The Board of Trade have no information as to differential shipping freights arranged by foreign Governments on agricultural exports, but, if the hon. and gallant Member has definite instances in mind and will let me have the details, I shall be prepared to make 6Uoh inquiries as are possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

VETERINARY MEDICAL RESEARCH.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when it is proposed that the scheme now being prepared for the development and co ordination of veterinary medical research shall be put into operation; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss it before the details are finally decided?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The scheme is still under consideration and I cannot yet say when it will be put into operation. The subject can of course be raised when the appropriate Vote is before the House.

CEREAL CULTIVATION (POLICY).

Viscount WOLMER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to defer the announcement of his proposals to put cereal growing on an economically sound basis until after the Ottawa Conference; and whether he will give an undertaking that the announcement shall in any case be made before the end of September, in order that farmers may be aware of its terms before they sow their crops?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret, but I have nothing to add to previous statements on this subject.

Viscount WOLMER: Cannot the Government give any indication at all when they are going to make this announcement?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is just what I have said.

Viscount WOLMER: In view of the Government's unsatisfactory answer, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

ALLOTMENTS, SOUTH SHIELDS.

Mr. EDE: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total acreage of allotments in the county borough of South Shields, and the area of the land owned by the borough council for this purpose?

Dr. ADDISON: The total acreage of allotments in South Shields, as reported by the council at the end of last year, was 110½ acres, exclusive of any railway allotments, the figures of which are only available for the country as a whole. No land is owned by the council for allotment purposes, but an area of one and a-quarter acres belonging to the council was being used temporarily for allotments at the date mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS AND COLONIES (MINISTERS' VISITS).

Mr. SMITHERS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any visits by His Majesty's Ministers to the Dominions or Colonies, apart from those necessitated by the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa, are under contemplation for the current year?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the Dominions, the answer to the hon. Member's inquiry is in the negative. I am not yet in a position to return a definite reply as regards the Colonies.

Mr. SMITHERS: Are the Government so occupied in developing trade with Russia that they forget the Empire?

Sir W. BRASS: May I ask Whether the valuable precedent set by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) will be remembered in this connection?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIP POLICY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to announce the policy
of His Majesty's Government with regard to the future construction of and experiments with airships?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to await the statement which will be made in the course of the Debate on Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF INDUSTRIAL EMPLOY- MENT BILL.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to take any further stages of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill during the current Session; and, if so, whether he can make any statement as to when the further stages will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not in a position at present to add anything to previous answers given on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (LOCAL AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENT).

Mr. MATHERS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the appointment and terms of reference of the committee to inquire into Scottish local and national government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on this subject on the 16th April. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and hope shortly to make a further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS (INSPECTION).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to make proprietary private schools subject to inspection by the Board of Education and the Ministry of Health?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): My right hon. Friend, who has been asked to reply, regards
this as a matter for consideration when a report has been received from the departmental committee which was appointed by his predecessor last December to consider the position of all schools not in receipt of grant from public funds.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ascertain the opinion of the London County Council on this matter, and is he aware that a school has been started in this country not only as a Soviet centre—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Ede.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I explain that I put a question about a particular school, and I understand that there is no Government Department at present responsible for the inspection of such a school; therefore, I asked the Prime Minister whether legislation can be introduced in order that such a school can be inspected. That is the only way in which I can ask such a question, and may I put that question to the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not raise any objection to the question, but to the supplementary question. The supplementary question does not arise out of the question on the Paper. Supplementary questions must have some bearing on the question on the Paper.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If I had been able to put my full supplementary question, I think I could have shown that it arises directly out of the question of a particular school, of a scandalous nature, which is subject to no inspection at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: The adjective the hon. Member is now using is not allowed either in questions or in supplementary questions.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. DAY: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any statistics, or will make inquiries, as to the number of nursery schools at present established in Germany compared with that of Great Britain; and can he state the number of new nursery schools that have been approved during
the previous 12 months; the number at present under construction; and the average present cost per place to provide a new nursery school?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My right hon. Friend has no statistics as to the number of schools established in Germany which could properly be regarded as comparable with English nursery schools; but he has some information as to the provision made in some German towns for children under school age, which he will be pleased to communicate to my hon. Friend. The number of nursery schools in England and Wales at present recognised by the Board of Education is 44, of which 14 have been recognised during the last 12 months. Final plans have been approved for 13 schools which are believed to be at present under construction. The average cost of building a nursery school is approximately £36 per place.

Mr. DAY: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the compulsory age for attendance in these schools?

Mr. JONES: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any research work is being carried out by the scientific staff of his Department with regard to the effect of the salp on the herring industry?

Dr. ADDISON: The answer is in the negative. The salp does not occur in waters normally covered by the Ministry's scientific investigations, but its movements are being observed by the Scientific Staff of the Fishery Board for Scotland.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is keeping in close touch with the Scottish Ministry lest this pest may come south?

Dr. ADDISON: I have inquired about this beast, and I am told that it is a free swimming, barrel-shaped, transparent animal, about three inches long, and is well known to seafaring people.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask what it weighs?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

PENNY POSTAGE.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 54.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, for the purpose of facilitating communication in the interest of trade and commerce, he is prepared to re-introduce penny postage at any early date?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): The reply is in the negative.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Does the Post-master-General not think that the State and the community would be best served by conferring this benefit on the United Kingdom and the British Empire rather than continuing the present system?

Captain CAZALET: What would it cost?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a subject for discussion.

IRISH FREE STATE (CORRESPONDENCE).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the number of complaints he has received with regard, respectively, to delay in the delivery of letters or to opening of letters between this country and the Irish Free State; and what action he is taking to prevent delay in the future?

Mr. ATTLEE: I am unable to state the exact number. There has been no increase in the number of complaints as regards delay; and those as regards opening letters are very rare. The need for any special action does not, therefore, arise.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the Postmaster-General not aware of the complaints which have been made by business interests in both countries, and is he aware that one lady who sent a £l note to a Dublin hospital, had it stopped and returned because it was the equivalent of two sweep tickets? Is not this an absurd inquisition?

Mr. ATTLEE: In reply to the supplementary question, I can only say that since last November 4 complaints have been received.

TELEPHONE OPERATORS.

Sir W. BRASS: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that no operators are to become un-
employed as a result of the introduction of the automatic telephones in the London area, he will state what duties the displaced operators will have to perform in the exchanges in lieu of answering the calls?

Mr. ATTLEE: The expansion of the telephone system and the wastage among the operating staff will make it possible to absorb in other exchanges operators not required in consequence of the gradual introduction of automatic working.

Sir W. BRASS: I understand that the inference to be drawn from the last reply is that no operators will be unemployed as a result of the introduction of automatic telephones in the London area, and that they are being employed for other purposes?

Mr. ATTLEE: Yes, but there is a certain wastage in the telephone staff due to marriage, and so forth; therefore, there is no actual turning away of any staff. There may be a slightly lower rate of intake.

Sir W. BRASS: Am I to understand that the Postmaster-General is recruiting less?

TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, when a new tenant takes over a house in which a telephone is already installed, the Post Office charges any instalment fee; and, if so, how much?

Mr. ATTLEE: The Post Office makes no installation charge whether or not the house is already telephoned.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has recently issued instructions to operators as regards trunk or toll calls that even if the subscriber, on being informed by the operator that the period of his call is terminated, at once ends his conversation and replaces his receiver, he is to be charged for the full period of the further time extension as specified; and, if so, when this regulation came into force?

Mr. ATTLEE: The answer is in the negative. On the contrary, the instructions provide for the announcements of elapsed duration to be made a few seconds before the expiry of the period
concerned, so as to allow the caller, if he so desires, to terminate his conversation and replace his receiver without incurring the charge for a further period.

Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Will the Postmaster-General inquire into this point, because some telephone operators think that they are, and they say that they are, obliged to charge the extra amount directly they announce that three minutes has expired.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will the Postmaster-General make inquiries at the exchange at Eaton Square which gave me that information?

Mr. ATTLEE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me any instances, I will have them inquired into.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General how long it has been the practice of the London telephone service to require of subscribers a deposit that is increased in ratio to the amount of their telephone accounts; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this practice?

Mr. ATTLEE: The present deposit system was introduced in 1921 when payments of quarterly rental in advance and quarterly local and trunk fees in arrear were substituted for the less liberal system under which a whole year's rental and payment for fees were required in advance. The deposit is based on two-thirds of the quarterly charges for calls and is subject to increase when substantially greater use is made of the service. I am now considering whether any change of practice is desirable.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General what sum was held by the Post Office at any recent convenient date representing deposits by subscribers to the telephone service; and how much the interest on this sum contributes annually to the profits of the telephone service?

Mr. ATTLEE: The amount held on 1st January last was £2,804,000. The annual interest value of this sum would be about £130,000 at the present time. It should, however, be pointed out that telephone services already rendered to subscribers balance, on average, the deposits in hand.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are many complaints from small traders about the excess amount charged them as deposit against their trunk and toll calls and will he inquire into this matter in order to see if some relief cannot be given to these people?

Mr. ATTLEE: I think it must have escaped the hon. Member that I have already stated that the matter is under my consideration.

REPLY-PAID ENVELOPES.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to a scheme of reply-paid envelopes for business purposes recently adopted in the United States of America, whereby reply envelopes may be sent out by business firms marked Postage will be paid by addressee and no postage stamp necessary if mailed in the United States, and in which the sum necessary to cover the cost of their return is deposited with the local post office; and whether, in order to stimulate trade in this country, he will consider the adoption of some such scheme by the British Post Office?

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 6th instant to the question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. WHITE: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone stations ordered and the number which ceased during 1930; and the number working at the end of 1930 and at the end of 1929, respectively?

Mr. ATTLEE: During 1930, 264,254 new telephone stations were connected with the system and 155,032 ceased. The numbers of stations working at the end of 1929 and at the end of 1930 were 1,848,468 and 1,957,690, respectively.

Mr. WHITE: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of letter complaints received from the public during 1929 and 1930 on the subject of apparatus faults and services?

Mr. ATTLEE: The number of letter complaints received in 1929 and 1930 was 83,136 and 79,269, respectively. These
figures, which include complaints in regard to accounts, represent about one complaint in respect of every 20,000 calls.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the majority of complaints over the telephone are corrected by the exchange?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (BRITISH GOVERN- MENT DIRECTORS).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what specific duties for safeguarding British interests the appointment of the British Government directors to the board of the Suez Canal Company imposes upon them; what the qualifications are upon which the appointment of the Government directors is based; and whether, and how often, they make commercial reports to His Majesty's Government suitable for circulation among British exporting industries?

Mr. GILLETT: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply returned to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) on the 28th April, and, as regards the second part, to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. West Russell) on the 21st April. As regards the third part of the question, no such reports are supplied by the British Government directors, who, however, use their influence to insure that British traders receive a fair share of the orders placed by the Suez Canal Company.

Sir C. CAYZER: Can the hon. Gentleman say how these gentlemen justify their appointment; and whether the appointments are permanent or subject to revision or change?

Mr. GILLETT: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of the second part of his supplementary question. The first part, I am afraid, I could not answer in any case.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARGARINE (INGREDIENTS).

Mr. McELWEE: 73.
asked the Minister of Health the names of the various ingredients used in the manufacture of
margarine m Great Britain during 1930; and the principal sources from which they are obtained?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): My right hon. Friend is not able to give information specifically relating to the year 1930, but he is advised that the principal ingredients normally used in the manufacture of margarine are various vegetable oils and fats, such as arachis, cocoanut, palm kernel, soya bean, and cotton seed oils, and rendered animal fats such as oleo oil and hardened marine animal fats. The ingredients are obtained from various sources, home and foreign, including West Africa and Manchuria for vegetable oils and South America for oleo.

Mr. McELWEE: Will the hon. Lady inquire, or advise the Minister of Health to inquire, as to the amount of fat that is extracted from sewage disposal works, and whether it is being used in the manufacture of margarine?

Miss LAWRENCE: If my hon. Friend can send me any information as to this practice, I shall be glad to receive it. At present there is no information.

Mr. McELWEE: I understand that a large dairy company is taking several tons a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES.

Sir C. CAYZER: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to collect the different convictions of motorists charged with not renewing their motor licences from forgetfulness, with the object of reaching a common policy to be recommended to the different benches of magistrates in dealing with such cases, more especially in view of the fact that in some cases motorists have been suspended for a period of 12 months, thus losing their livelihood altogether?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): No, Sir. It is for courts to determine what sentence or order, within the limit allowed by law, is appropriate.

Sir C. CAYZER: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it a travesty of justice to deprive a man of his licence, and in some cases of his livelihood, for such a trivial cause; and can he not issue instructions to all benches of magistrates pointing out that they have a considerable discretion in such cases?

Mr. SHORT: As to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the matter is purely one of opinion. As to the second part, I have already answered it.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that if a driver of a motor-car forgets by one day to renew his driving licence he becomes an uninsured person and liable to fines amounting to £70, three months' imprisonment, and to have his licence taken away for 12 months, he will urge, instead of discouraging, all county councils to send out reminders to drivers a fortnight before their licence expires?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I cannot adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that councils should be urged to issue reminders of expiry of motor driving licences, as I do not think the advantages obtained by such a system would justify the expense and work involved. As stated in the answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 4th May, I am in consultation with the representatives of motor insurance interests as regards the particular class of case out of which the hon. and gallant Member's question arises, with a view to overcoming the difficulty more effectively than by means of reminders.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is becoming a very serious offence now to forget to take out a driving licence, though it was not so before; and would not he urge all county councils, as it is a very simple matter, to send reminders, as some of them do already?

Mr. MORRISON: I have gone further than that; I have laid it down that I will not let them do it. Hon. Members, really, are trying to raise to a virtue forgetting to renew a driving licence, and they are undermining the British character by the way in which they are going on.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues, the Postmaster-General, and ascertain whether it is not the fact that wireless licences, which are much more in number than motor driving licences, are renewed each year upon reminders sent from the Post Office?

Mr. MORRISON: Unlicensed motor drivers are a much more serious question than unlicensed wireless sets.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not that all the more reason why they should have a reminder?

Sir W. BRASS: Has the right hon. Gentleman calculated how much it would cost the local authorities to do this, as in the case of all these other licences?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, Sir; these matters have all been gone into fully; and on grounds of administration and on grounds of cost I do not propose to do it, but still more on the ground that I do not wish to encourage licence-holders to feel that there is no great responsibility upon them to remember.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is it the practice of railway companies to inform their season ticket holders when a season ticket expires?

Mr. MORRISON: Not with me.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Nor with me

SHREWSBURY BY-PASS.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport the total estimated cost of the Shrewsbury by-pass road; the amount of the Treasury contribution; and what conditions are attached as to the employment of local labour?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The total estimated cost of the Shrewsbury by-pass is £139,864. A grant from the Road Fund of £118,884, being 85 per cent. of this cost, was indicated on the 24th January last on condition that 30 per cent. of the men employed are transferred from depressed areas selected by the Ministry of Labour and engaged through Employment Exchanges. Of the remainder, 10 per cent. of the men are permanent employés of the contractors, and 60 per cent. are engaged through local Employment Exchanges.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. BOWEN: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service will be available?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a similar question on 27th April put by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha).

Mr. BOWEN: Did not my hon. Friend, in the answer to which he has referred, say that the report was expected in a few months; and am I to understand that "a few months" means a few months from April, or a few months from now?

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: I should like to refer to some remarks that I made in the Debate on land taxation on Thursday, to which you, Sir, took exception, and I shall be glad if you will give me the opportunity and the House will listen to an explanation which I should wish to make. When you ruled me out of order for attempting to discuss the question of the nationalisation of land, what I had in mind was one or two sentences from speeches which had been delivered on which we on this side of the House feel very strongly. May I quote one or two sentences from one speech?
What are the real intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? They are two: First, the Socialist party baulked of obtaining nationalisation by open means, that is to say, by robbery if no compensation is paid, is attempting to obtain their ambition by this thin end of the wedge.
A further sentence I had in mind was this:
The fact is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to nationalise the land of this country by stealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1931; col. 736, Vol. 252.]
In the speech that I attempted to make, my only anxiety was to rebut, if I could, suggestions of that kind, because we feel very strongly on the matter. If I created the impression in the protest that I made that I made any reflection upon your impartiality in the Chair or in the fairness of your Ruling, or if. I created any impression in your mind or in the mind of the House that what I
said was a personal reflection on your conduct, I desire to take this early opportunity of very fully withdrawing and expressing my apology.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. Member for his generous response.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Herbert Paul Latham, esquire, for the County of York, North Riding (Scarborough and Whitby Division).

PROPRIETARY MEDICINES BILL.

"to regulate the manufacture, sale, and advertisement of certain medicines and surgical appliances; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Dr. Hastings; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Tinne, Dr. Morris-Jones, Mr. Ramsay, Dr. Salter, and Mr. George Oliver; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 20th May, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1931 [Progress].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLASS VI.

DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £280,507, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grante-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel Association of Great Britain."—[Note: £144,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: We are inviting the Committee to consider the work of the Department of Overseas Trade and the report upon its operations because this is the only Department of State which is trying to foster and direct our export overseas trade. This is a matter which at all times is of great importance but it is particularly urgent and important at this moment. It is manifest that the work of the Overseas Trade Department is the direct complement of every effort that is being made at home to aid employment by the reorganisation of our industry and the equipment of our factories. It is clear that, from the growth of many of our industries based upon small units, the processes of organisation are difficult and will take a long time to carry out. Another object that we have in initiating this Debate is that Parliament may have an opportunity of discussing the reports which have been issued by many of those important overseas trade missions which owe their origin very largely to the initiative of the Department of Overseas Trade. Some of the recommendations which have come from these bodies are indeed authoritative, because they are composed of men representing all branches of industry, are intimately acquainted with the work and the manufactures in which they are engaged and are able to speak with responsibility and
with no small measure of authority. It cannot be denied that the reports which are being made now are very serious. In some aspects they are very alarming. Although there are some encouraging features in them, it is clear that, unless they are taken to heart by those to whom they are addressed, we are not likely to be able to retain even the share of overseas trade which we have held up to the present. It appears to my mind that the work of the Department should occupy a foremost part in the programme of any Government which is professing to deal with the subject of unemployment.
It is a little unfortunate that there seems to be some evidence at least that the value of the work of the Department is not fully appreciated by those for whose benefit it was primarily instituted. The hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Department, speaking at Oxford in the latter end of last year, referred to the remarkable fact that the services of his Department, and the valuable records which have been collected there, were taken advantage of more by the large commercial enterprises, whose resources for obtaining information were themselves very great and, indeed, highly efficient, than by those smaller firms up and down the country whose resources for investigation overseas and for acquiring information are not nearly so great as those of many of the larger and more important bodies. There is also considerable evidence that Parliament itself is not sufficiently seized of the importance of the work of the Department. Within the last few years the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in a fitful and evanescent moment of enthusiasm for economy came to the House with a recommendation—I am not sure that it was not an edict—that the Department should be abolished. Within the last few weeks an hon. Member in one of our Debates on economy returned to that subject and suggested that, if it was not abolished, at all events its identity should be merged in some other Department of State. When we contrast the activities of our own Department of Overseas Trade with the activities of the Department of Commerce, for example, of the United States or the corresponding body in Japan, one cannot but realise what a disaster it would have been if this advice tendered
to the House on various occasions had been acted upon.
The Committee would like to be assured that it is the intention of the Government that the Department of Overseas Trade shall be at least as efficient and effective, and its operations at least as widespread, as those of its counterparts in the countries of our trade rivals. We ought to have some assurance on that point. In particular, I notice that the Department of Commerce in America appears to undertake, and to have the means of undertaking, a very much wider publicity with regard to its work and the information it collects than we seem up to the present to have been able to exercise at home. When one comes to look for a moment at the operations of the corresponding body in Japan, one cannot but be amazed at the activities of the Government in assisting its traders. The report of a commission made some very interesting revelations in that respect. It may be that the methods which the Japanese Government and the Department of Commerce have adopted in fostering trade are such that we may not wish to follow. I think that they would probably be regarded as being unheard of in this country. We may remind ourselves that many things which are now commonplace and which are accepted as everyday occurrences were in their time unheard of, and we cannot afford to shut our eyes to the developments which are taking place, and the direct assistance of Governments to the transactions of manufacturers who are endeavouring to develop overseas trade. I should like in this connection, expressing the hope that our own Department of Overseas Trade is not to be cramped or handicapped by any niggardly policy, to quote from the British Economic Mission to the Far East some very significant sentences. Speaking of the Department of Commerce and Industry, that is, of Japan, they said:
The Department of Commerce and Industry last year, despite a wave of economy, succeeded in obtaining funds for the establishment of a Bureau of Foreign Trade, and this bureau quickly got to work, for with its encouragement trade commissions were immediately despatched abroad under the auspices of the leading chambers of commerce or municipalities for the purpose of finding trade openings in the countries in which Japan had not previously broken satisfactory ground.
They went on:
In addition the Ministry of Commerce and Industry allotted last year £7,000 as travelling expenses to 13 inspectors with either technical or business experience to visit various countries to find trade openings, and of these, five were for the cotton textile trade.
I am not aware of any comparable effort having been made by ourselves in this country. If I were asked to express my opinion about the Department of Overseas Trade, I should say that I am quite convinced that within the scope of its operations and within the means at its disposal, it is carrying on a work which is as efficient and as valuable to the nation as any other Department which is concerned with our trade at the present time. In particular,? welcome the setting up of the Advisory Council which is now attached to the Department of Overseas Trade. One is glad to think they have been able to gather round them the personnel of that Advisory Council many distinguished members drawn from all kinds of industry and representing all the elements which go to make up the efficient working of industry. I believe that a very valuable piece of constructive work has been undertaken, and I hope that the Secretary will be able to give us this afternoon some information as to the progress which is being made.
I pass now to what has perhaps been the most sensational, and certainly not the least useful, part of the work which has been initiated by the Department of Overseas Trade. I refer to the large number of expert trade missions which have been despatched to a large number of countries throughout the world. It is impossible to estimate the services which have been rendered by those representatives of industry, trade unions, and specialists of one sort and another who have given up their time and their energy in carrying out those arduous and exacting investigations. I also feel that any reference to this important and national work of reawakening the spirit of enterprise in our foreign trade would not be complete without a reference to the very great services which have been rendered by the Heir to the Throne. He has with an enthusiasm and an energy, I think I might say, of self-sacrifice, thrown himself into this work and has rendered a service which perhaps only he had it in his power to render.
On reviewing the subject of foreign trade missions, there are features which are not altogether reassuring. While we welcome the fact that they have been despatched, and while we appreciate the importance and the gravity of the recommendations that they have made, we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that they are a reflection of our own shortcomings in the past. If the industries of this country had kept themselves fully acquainted, by direct representation on the spot, with the requirements of foreign markets, if all had done that which some few of the greater industries of the country have done in keeping themselves well posted as to the needs of overseas trade, we should not have had the necessity of appointing those missions. A point which we should bear in mind is, that there is only one other country beside ourselves which finds it necessary to organise those missions. It is not necessary for Czechoslovakia, for example, to send a mission to investigate the cotton trade of Cairo and Egypt. It is quite unnecessary for them to do it, because year after year a greater share of the cotton industry of Egypt is being transferred to Czechoslovakia, and the conditions therefore are highly satisfactory from their point of view. One might multiply instances of that kind. The one country which is following our example, or acting on the initiative of its own trade, which, I think, is the case, and is equipping and sending out a large number of foreign missions, in fact more than we have done, is Japan. There are—either in process or have taken place or are in prospect—no less than 26 commercial missions being sent out by the country of Japan. That is indeed a significant fact. Their case is somewhat different from ours, because they are on the look out, with a great national determination, to establish themselves in every market where they have not already a satisfactory footing.
4.0 p.m.
We shall be glad this afternoon to hear some account of what is being done and what steps are being taken by industry itself, either independently or with the assistance and direction of the Department of Overseas Trade, to follow up the recommendations which have been made by those missions which have so far re-
ported the results of their journeys. In particular, one would like to know whether there are any general defects in our overseas trade technique which are reported by all those missions. From my observations, I am inclined to think that there are. From the reports which I have read, there appears to be one item which runs through every single report, and that is the item of price. It has been particularly enforced with regard to the mission which has investigated the cotton trade in the Far East. The mission reports that the Japanese cotton industry has a small advantage in every single operation of the trade, from the purchase of the cotton itself to the spinning, the weaving and everything in the factory, which, although small in itself, is in the aggregate very substantial, and is a very important matter, as it is injurious to ourselves in trying to maintain our export trade in the Far East. There, again, I would refer once more to the Japanese Chamber of Commerce, the Department of Trade. They have found there, as we have here, that there are small groups of manufacturers who are unable themselves to maintain an adequate service for developing then-overseas trade, and they have, with direct Government assistance, given foundation grants to those industries to establish overseas selling guilds. That is, indeed, a very important thing.
I am aware of the fact that our trade mission which reported on the conditions in Northern Europe for the leather trade, indicated, at all events, that a similar step on behalf of an export co-operative guild, or whatever it might be designated, to advance trade, would be very valuable to that industry, namely, the light leather trade. If we find that our competitors are establishing these methods, if we find that they are actually subsidising them from grants from the public Exchequer, we may not like it, but there is nothing to be gained by adopting a policy like that of the ostrich burying its head in the sand.
On the subject of price, it is an unfortunate fact, as I gather, that whereas the reputation of our goods overseas for quality is still unchallenged, we have an unfortunate reputation for dearness, with the result that in many places where
people are looking round to buy goods, they do not even trouble to ask us to quote, because they say, "Oh, England is a dear country." Many of the recommendations and many of the grave statements which have been made by our missions which have gone overseas, are matters which are really not suitable for discussion in Parliament. It is difficult to see how Parliament can set these matters right. I think that that is particularly applicable to the question of price. On that subject, I have already quoted the statement made by the Eastern mission with regard to the case of the Japanese mills. That is a matter which can only be set right by the industry itself, and I am glad to think that the mission which made this grave report with regard to our cotton trade in the Far East was fully representative of the trade and every section of it. It is now up to them to see what is necessary to be done in order that they may at least maintain the trade, and endeavour to regain that which has been lost.
On the whole, perhaps the most serious accusation is that the traders of this country have shown a lack of adaptability and initiative, and a complete failure to keep in touch with their customers overseas. There has been brought to light, I think by every mission which has set forth from these shores, the fact that in South America, Northern Europe and South Africa we have in this country most valuable good will as traders, but that that good will is being steadily dissipated, simply because we will not take the trouble to keep it up. The very weighty report which was issued by Lord D'Abernon on his return from South America is of such importance, and crystallises this matter so effectively, that if I may be allowed to do so, I will quote one or two sentences from the report:
The principal criticism of British commercial practice in the countries we have visited is our apparent incapacity to accommodate ourselves to local circumstances; we are reproached with inadaptability and with persistent adherence to what Great Britain thinks good, to the exclusion of what South America wants. Typical examples of this, to take only those of major importance, are the motor trade agricultural machinery—harvesters, ploughs, tractors, wind-mills— road-making plant.…. Our failure to capture even a small proportion of these trades may be attributed to inability to produce
on a sufficiently large scale, insufficient finance, high prices, unsuitability, to South American needs, defective salesmanship—including inadequate advertisement, inadequate service, inadequate show-rooms, inadequate range of choice. Moreover, South America is not one market but several, and each requires separate study and a special organisation for sales.
It is difficult to imagine a more devastating condemnation of the apathy of British traders at a time of the very greatest need, when everyone, in the interest of national financial stability and employment, should be putting forward every conceivable effort he can make in order to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs. A few days ago I made a few passing remarks on this subject in the House, and I was taken to task by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) on the ground that I did not appreciate the spirit and enterprise of British traders. I did not on that occasion, nor do I on this, express any opinion which has not been expressed about the traders of this country by their representatives who have gone abroad to see for themselves what the condition of things is. One could multiply cases from one's own personal experience of this deplorable "Take it or leave it" attitude.
I notice that Lord Kerkley's Trade Mission, in reporting on the state of trade in South Africa, complain particularly of the lack of enterprise of British manufacturers in supplying anything like the necessary service to maintain continuous business connections in relation to trades such as the motor car trade, tractors, motor vehicles, radio and the like, which require a continuous after-service. They go so far as to say that no motor car or tractor should be shipped from this country to South Africa in future unless and until manufacturers are prepared to maintain an adequate service, because it condemns not merely that particular machine, but gives a bad name to the whole series of British exports to that country. It is no good buying a British tractor, or whatever it may be, if you want a spare part and cannot get it. Only the day before yesterday I had a few words, quite by chance, with an acquaintance, an Englishman, who happened to own an English motor car in Cape Town. He had a breakdown, and wanted some spare part. It took him a great deal of time, trouble
and research to find out where it was possible to obtain a spare part in South Africa. Eventually, he found someone in Durban who was alleged to be an agent of this particular firm, and, after three weeks, he succeeded in getting a spare part, which turned out to be second-hand and would not work at all.
These are the things, small in themselves, which, in the aggregate, are of very great importance in the establishment of our British trade. Take the oft-quoted incident of the Peruvian spades. An Englishman there saw a very large programme of public works being carried out by Indian workmen, who came down from their camps and engaged in this work for three months, and, as part of their contract, were entitled to take away at the end of that period the spades with which they had been working on the job. In these circumstances, the contractor out there did not want a spade which would last for three years, but one which would last for the three months and just a little longer, so that it might be of some service to the man who was taking it away. The Englishman seeing the possibility of doing trade in this particular article, wrote home for quotations, and, in due course, he received a magnificent spade, far better than anything that was being used in Peru, and very much more costly. He, therefore, obtained a specimen of the spade that was required and sent it back to Sheffield, or wherever it was, and waited for the reply, which came in due course to this effect: "We are sorry; we do not make spades of this kind." In every country you will find accumulating evidence of lack of energy and lack of desire to find out what our customers want.
Then there was the almost incredible statement made by the Master Cutler after the very valuable tour of investigation which he and some of his friends made into the conditions of the cutlery trade in South America—a very important mission, and one which will bear important fruit in increased business for Sheffield. The Master Cutler, however, is reported to have said, without contradiction—the statement sounds almost incredible—that from the end of the War down to the time his mission went out, some 10 or 11 years—[An HON. MEMBER: "16!"]—there had not been one
representative of the Sheffield trade to investigate the condition of things in South America.
These are some of the salient matters which have been reported by the trade missions which, under the direction of my hon. Friend's Department have been doing such exceedingly valuable service. If I were asked to state what was probably the most abiding benefit which has been derived by the institution of the League of Nations, I would say, not that it lay in the fact that it has prevented this or that problem from landing countries in war, but that, in place of the long-range correspondence between countries, the old formal exchange of compliments and correspondence through the embassies and diplomatic channels, it has substituted direct and personal contact, which is the only means by which complete confidence can be engendered between nations.
Exactly the same is true of trade. No spectacular trade missions can in any way replace the active participation of the principals of our businesses, their constant visits, and so forth, to the actual customers they are seeking to supply. Some of the points raised by missions oversea are of such grave and serious importance that they can he solved only by the industries themselves, and it is necessary that they should act—and act quickly—because they are still losing ground. They should also act quickly for another reason. If on the return of a mission it is announced that steps are to be taken to produce cheaper goods, the reaction, in the mind of an overseas trader, is this: "If these people are going to produce cheaper goods in weeks or months, I am not going to send my orders now." On every ground, it is important that the recommendations should be acted upon with all possible speed. I hope the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade will be able to give us an account of what is being done by the industries to tackle these problems, and if they are not doing it, perhaps he will say what further steps the House can take to help in that direction. There are some things which concern industry alone which we cannot discuss adequately here, and there are some disadvantages, geographical and otherwise, which we cannot overcome, but in the majority of the instances that I
have brought before the House there is no reason why they should not be overcome fairly speedily, and that is clearly the opinion of the commissions which have reported.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: May I associate myself with the gracious words that were used by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) in connection with the magnificent services which were rendered to our export trade by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales? Truly may he be described as the greatest commercial traveller and the most powerful advertising medium that the world has ever known. We are grateful to him for the splendid assistance he so repeatedly gives to the trade and industry of this country.
We are not always pleased with hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on this side of the House, but to-day we may all agree that they have opened up a very useful discussion. The occasions are far too rare when we have an opportunity of discussing in this House the export trade of the country, which is such a vital part of the total trade of the country so far as the welfare of our people is concerned. As one who has occupied the position at the Department of Overseas Trade which is now occupied by my hon. Friend opposite, I hope that I shall be able to appreciate the difficulties which daily confront not only my hon. Friend but the members of his staff. I do not desire to add to those difficulties in any way, and I hope that anything that I say this afternoon will be constructive rather than destructive in character. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead has spoken about certain missions which have left this country to carry out investigations in other parts of the world. He mentioned briefly the British Economic Mission which recently visited the Far East to investigate trade conditions there. The chairman of that commission was Sir Ernest Thompson, and certain other members of the mission were well known to me when I was at the Department of Overseas Trade. They all possess great qualifications, fitting them eminently for the important work which they undertook. Not a single member of that commission can be described as a pessimist or an alarmist. They all realised their responsibilities to the country. Not one member of that com-
mission could ever be found guilty of exaggeration in any way, yet in spite of those qualifications, which I have mentioned deliberately, they have reported in a very alarming way on what they found in the Far East. What was the main conclusion which the commission reached? They say:
Should the decline in the export trade of Great Britain continue much longer at its present alarming rate, the result must soon be evident in bankruptcy and disaster at home.
That is a very serious statement. What are the suggestions contained in the report for avoiding disaster at home? Very few of the suggestions are novel in character, but coming from a commission of that kind, they will undoubtedly carry much weight. One of the first observations to which I would refer in the report of the commission is this:
The production and all other costs must be reduced until the prices of British goods reach once more a competitive level.
They go on to say:
That such a policy will require sacrifices by all classes of the community in Great Britain, there is no doubt.
Almost every Member of this House has heard that sort of thing before. We have all to make our sacrifice, but what are we doing to assist that policy? What is industry doing at the present time to reduce prices? I know what industry is doing, and I know what every individual in the country is doing—waiting for somebody else to make the first sacrifice. Cannot the Government and the various local authorities in the country set an example? Cannot the first step be Governmental economy and local economy? Rates and taxes must be reduced if we are to compete in the overseas markets of the world:
Taxation hangs like a millstone round the neck of industry.
Who was it who used those words nearly two years ago? The Chancellor of the Exchequer. What has he done since? He has increased taxation and made it still more difficult for industry to hold its head above water. Let the Government and the local authorities give a lead. What about the employers? The hon. Member for East Birkenhead has told us of the many ways in which employers could help to improve the existing conditions. I would suggest a great deal closer co-operation
between employers. I would suggest combined selling agencies overseas. The hon. Member has told us of some of the difficulties in connection with the purchase of spare parts overseas. I would suggest that there should be combined selling agencies where an individual firm cannot afford to set up an agency of its own. I would also suggest that business people should be a little less secretive than they have been in the past about their own business. In these days of fierce competition it would be much more helpful if each manufacturer did something to acquaint even his competitors with certain methods of trading overseas, in order that all could reap the benefit of the information so supplied. There ought also to be greater effort to adopt rationalisation in industry.
All have to make their sacrifice. What about the trade unions? We have to face facts. There is no good shirking an issue of this kind. The trade unions must move with the times. Their rules and regulations are far too rigid. If you take the cotton industry alone—with which, thank goodness, I am not directly associated, and therefore I can speak more frankly than otherwise would be the case—does anyone imagine that we can go on for ever working only four looms with one weaver, when in other countries one weaver is working 10 times as many looms?

Mr. BENSON: A different type of loom.

Mr. HACKING: Why cannot we go over to the same type of loom? One of the difficulties with the trade unions to-day is that they are too rigid. Their regulations are much too rigid. The same sort of fight took place—of course, I do not remember it myself, but I have read about it—when we changed over from the hand loom to the power loom. Courage was required in those days to make the change, and we must have courage to-day, otherwise the country will never be able to compete with foreign countries in the production of goods which we ought to produce and are anxious to produce in Lancashire just as economically as in other parts of the world.
The report of the Economic Mission to the Far East also said that we have too little publicity. That was referred to by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead.
This is what the Commission say about publicity:
It is a common complaint that British manufacturers do not give attention to proper advertisement.
The report further says:
British publicity is stated to be far behind the times, and ineffective in comparison with that of our competitors.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead told us what is contained in the D'Abernon Report with regard to publicity. In that report it is stated that there was inadequate advertisement. The Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade is also chairman of the executive committee of the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, and he knows what can be done by co-operative effort to attract more visitors from overseas. Films, broadcasting, co-operative newspaper advertising and many other methods have succeeded, by co-operative means, in attracting more visitors to this country, thereby increasing our invisible export trade. I suggest to the Minister that there is no reason to suppose that such co-operative efforts could not be extended to other industries in addition to the travel industry. There is no reason to suppose that if such co-operative effort took place, orders could not be secured, thereby increasing our visible export trade.
The Travel Association is in a position to extend its co-operative efforts to include other industries, in addition to the travel industry. The Articles of Association lay it down as our duty to stimulate abroad the demand for British goods, in addition to stimulating the demand for British services. I hope the Minister will advise our traders to consider this co-operative method of advertising to make their wares better known abroad than they are at the present time. They will be able to obtain advice and assistance from the association I have mentioned. Co-operative advertising is much more attractive because it is bolder; it is more successful because it is more attractive; and further it is much cheaper than advertising which is obtained by individual effort.
I must say a few words in connection with our export trade to India, and probably it will be more opportune to do so now than during the Debate on India
which is to take place on Wednesday. May I say at once how much I regret the illness of our chief Trade Commissioner in India. I know Mr. Ainscough to be an exceedingly able and conscientious man, and it is a great pity that he should be stricken down with illness at this moment when his services are so much required. I hope the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department will convey to him the wishes of this House for a complete and speedy recovery of health. The Trade Commissioner has four assistants in India, two at Calcutta and two at Bombay. It is reasonable to suppose that the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department is frequently receiving report" from these assistants as to how the condition of affairs in India affect our export trade, and especially our Lancashire trade. May I ask whether the hon. Member can give us any news this afterooon in regard to the effect of the boycott of our goods and the result of picketing in India?
Many hon. Members on this side of the House, including myself, have asked frequent questions not only of the Secretary of State for India but also of the Overseas Trade Department, but neither of these Ministers appear to desire to give us much information. The Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department has told us nothing in reply to our questions. Is it because he knows nothing, or is this another example of the secrecy to which the House has become accustomed to receive from this Government? Open diplomacy was once the faith and creed of hon. Members opposite but it was only their faith and creed when they were sitting on this side of the House. Now they have got into a padded room and appear to be muttering to themselves. Not one word gets out of that padded room to the outside world, and not a soul on this side of the House is qualified to enter. Has the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department taken any action to combat the boycott in India in the interests of our export trade? Surely the boycott of British goods, even if it is only economic in character, which I doubt, does not mean that we are no longer to advertise our own goods in India. Has the hon. Member thought of instituting a Press campaign or a widespread distribution of leaflets to the people of India pointing
out the value of our manufactures? Has he thought of the dissemination of information in any form to prove to the masses in India that the boycott is not in their own interests, because its effect means that they will have to pay more for the goods they wish to buy? Has he thought of these things?
Surely, if the boycott is really economic in character, surely, if quiet and peaceful persuasion is the only method to be used to influence the purchase of Indian goods in India, we too should be able to persuade in the same way. It may be difficult, no doubt it is, for one single individual to advertise in that part of the world, but I suggest that a combined effort under the auspices of the Department of Overseas Trade would be of great assistance. I submit that there is great value in that part of the world in cooperative advertising. It is quite clear that if Mr. Gandhi gets has own way Lancashire will not suffer alone. He has already told us plainly and clearly that all British capital and vested interests in India are to be sacrificed. Foreign traders are in future to confine their activities to the ports. Is the Government going to capitulate completely to Mr. Gandhi without any struggle at all on behalf of the export trade of this country? The Secretary of State for India may claim that his chief concern is India. May I point out that the Secretary for Overseas Trade cannot make that excuse?

Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss the position of Mr. Gandhi on this Vote?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have followed the argument of the right hon. Member, and, if I had thought that he was discussing the political position of Mr. Gandhi, I should certainly have called him to order. He was getting near the border line, but I understand he is urging the Overseas Trade Department to use its powers to advertise British goods in India.

Mr. McSHANE: The right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) has already dealt with taxation. Would it be possible for you Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to give us an idea as to the scope within which we may discuss this matter?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means about taxation, but, so far as India is concerned, I could not allow anything of a political character to be discussed under this Vote. The only things that can be discussed upon this Vote are matters for which the Overseas Trade Department are administratively responsible. I could not allow any discussion on the general question of taxation.

Mr. HACKING: I am glad to know that so far I have not transgressed. I do not intend to pursue that question at the moment, but I thought I was entitled to point out the very serious effect of the situation in India on the export trade of this country. The Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, as he knows very well, is responsible for the export trade of this country, it is his responsibility alone. He, at any rate, cannot claim that he is responsible for looking after the interests of India. We look to him to justify his position in regard to our export trade not only to that country but to every country in the world. "We expect him to fight to the last ditch in the defence of our trade to overseas countries. If he is feeble in his efforts, if he is vacillating and inconstant in his endeavours on behalf of the export trade, if he does not use every ounce of energy to get every kind of business, then not only will the Members of this House as individuals but the country as a whole will rise up and in no uncertain voice tell him and the Government, of which he is so important a member, that they are no longer worth their salt.

The SECRETARY of the OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gillett): I should like, in the first place, to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) in regard to the great work that has been done by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I can only say, in my position as Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, that the speeches His Royal Highness is going to deliver to-night in Birmingham and to-morrow in Manchester will be of the greatest interest to the whole of our industries, whether
they are specially connected with the export trade or whether they are only interested in the home market. I hope that what His Royal Highness has to say may be noted because the times through which we are passing are so critical and so important that if so valuable a contribution as that which I have no doubt will be the speeches of His Royal High-ness is disregarded it would indeed be a misfortune.
I must thank the right hon. Member for Chorley for what he has so kindly said about Mr. Ainscough, our representative in India, and I will certainly convey to him the message which the right hon. Member has sent. The right hon. Member may be interested to know that I have had the advantage of seeing Mr. Ainscough since he came to this country and so far as the policy of this Government is concerned which is specially related to overseas trade I can assure the right hon. Member that we know Mr. Ainscough's views on the policy which he thinks is worth following. So far as India is concerned the India Vote is down for Wednesday afternoon and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India will then deal with that question. I only propose this afternoon to give a little information to the Committee on the India question which may satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and prove that for once we have opened to some extent the closed door. I did not quite understand his reference to himself and his colleagues, but it would appear from what he said that those who sit on the benches opposite are, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, quite incapable of taking office. Indeed, his remarks were such that I began to wonder whether he was holding the views of the supporters of the Government in regard to Members of his own party.

Mr. HACKING: I was talking of a padded room, and I said that hon. Members on this side of the House have no right to enter a padded room.

Mr. GILLETT: I am glad the misunderstanding has been removed, because I have always understood that one advantage of having an Opposition is that it should be able to take office in case the Government were defeated. I have had the advantage of having received from India a despatch giving the latest
information in regard to the position in that country. I would first of all read a brief resume which I have had prepared.
According to telegraphic reports received this morning from the offices of the trade commissioners at Calcutta and Bombay, the stocks of British piece goods, etc., in Eastern India are low, but only small clearances have been effected during the past month. Owing to her low prices Japan is able to compete but sales are reported to be below normal.
Attention is also drawn to the serious fall in the purchasing power due to the low prices obtained for Indian produce. In Western India there seems to be but little movement of stocks, and here again there is inquiry for Japanese piece goods, due, it is reported, to their cheapness, the general economic depression being reported as the greatest retarding factor.
I would like to draw attention to those last few words. It has often been overlooked that the general trade depression is having a profound effect in India. Those who listen to the arguments sometimes adduced by hon. Members opposite about the position of trade in India might imagine that it was entirely due to the boycott. As a matter of fact, as this telegram shows, the greatest retarding factor is the trade depression through which India has been passing, quite apart from political considerations. When there is a trade depression, then it is that the chief Japanese goods have an advantage over the more highly priced Manchester goods. I am also in possession of a detailed report received on Saturday morning by air mail concerning the Indian Export Agency scheme.
It is understood that the proposed company has not yet been registered, and so far as can be ascertained little or no progress has been made with this project. In fact the view seems to be held in some quarters that it is doubtful whether anything will come of the scheme. I am glad to be able to state that an advance copy of the report on Japanese bleached cotton piece goods in India has just been received by air mail, and that the samples are due to arrive some time next week, after which steps will be taken to advise the trade of the position in regard to competition in this line.
One or two figures which may interest the House. Since December, 1930, the exports to India from the United Kingdom have shown some tendency to increase, though the March figures are below those of February. In December
the exports to India of cotton piece goods of all kinds had fallen to 20.3 million square yards. In January this figure had increased to 28.9 million square yards, and in February to 36.7 million square yards. Exports during March amounted to 34.7 million square yards, and during April to 39.2 million square yards. The figures, of course, are not very large, but on the other hand it, is satisfactory to notice that in December the figure was 20.3, and that last month it was 39.2 million square yards.

Mr. REMER: Has the hon. Gentleman the figures for the corresponding months of last year?

Mr. GILLETT: I have not them by me, but if the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper no doubt I can supply them. I want to turn from the question of India to say a few words, first of all, in regard to the work of my Department. I am not sure whether this is not the first time that the Vote for the Overseas Trade Department has ever been asked for in the history of the House. I am not sure that that is not a reflection on hon. Members opposite, and on those who sit on this side of the Committee who have recently been in opposition. I am taking the opportunity of saying a few words, not only about the work of the last 12 months, but of going back to the time when I first became Secretary of the Department. In the figures that we are placing before the Committee this year the total expenditure is £567,000. Apart from the expenditure incurred on our behalf by other Departments the figure is £519,000. We received Appropriations-in-Aid of £95,000, so that the net cost is £424,000—a decrease of £78,000 upon last year. That decrease is really mainly explained by one factor. Our estimates for exhibitions this year amount to only £20,000, compared with £82,000 last year. Last year, of course, we had to bear the main cost of the Antwerp Exhibition—£72,000 in that year. That explains £62,000 out of the £72,000 reduction. £10,000 is also accounted for by a reduction mainly due to drop in bonus of the staff. In closely considering the figures it is also to be noted that the reductions in staff are explained by the fact that the work which we have undertaken for the Empire Marketing Board in the past will not be
undertaken to such a large extent this year, because the Empire Marketing Board are reducing by £15,000 the amount of money which they are contributing to the Overseas Trade Department for special work done on their behalf.
I now turn to the question of our representation overseas. When the present Government took office in June, 1929, we had 30 commercial diplomatic officers. In May of this year the number had been increased to 40. There were 14 trade commissioners in June, 1929; in 1931 they had been increased to 19. A special commissioner has also been appointed in connection with the new development council which I formed for overseas trade. British commercial officers have therefore together increased from 44 to 60. At the same time we have increased the number of assistants to trade commissioners and assistants to commercial diplomatic officers. In many places it was the custom to have a chief clerk who, in the absence of the head of the office, naturally had to take his place. The appointment of these chief clerks at a large number of posts was made by the officer in charge of the posts.
It has been felt that it was essential, in order to get the full benefit of their services, that these chief clerks should be put on the established staff and the appointments made by the head office in London. In view of the fact that the period during which an officer might be away from his post, after allowing time for him to come to England and to return, is considerable, it is most important that those left in charge should be fully able to undertake the duties. That reorganisation has been going on and accounts for the fact that to-day we have 16 established assistants to trade commissioners instead of 12, and that established assistants to commercial diplomatic officers are nine, whereas previously there was none. When I say that the total of our representatives overseas is 85 compared with 56, allowance has to be made for the fact that in the case of about 14 of them it is a mere change in name and status.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Do we understand that this is largely in the nature of a promotion of chief clerks?

Mr. GILLETT: Largely in the nature of placing the chief clerks permanently
on the staff of the Department, and it is understood that in future the appointments will be made from London. In that way a closer connection will be established between them and the Government at home.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Do we understand that chief clerks are to be commercial diplomatic officers?

Mr. GILLETT: They are chief clerks either to commercial diplomatic officers or to trade commissioners—commercial diplomatic officers in the case of foreign countries and trade commissioners in the case of our own Dominions. I would like to refer to a matter that was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead in his speech. He mentioned the number of officers in the United States service. As a matter of fact, the number of officials, compared with the 85, would be in the nature of 162, because the posts in the overseas service of the United States are much more largely staffed than those that we have; but if we take the different cities all over the world where the representatives of the United States Government are to be found, and compare the posts with our own and those of the Canadian Government, we find that in 1931 the Canadian Government had 35 posts, the United States Government had 59 and the United Kingdom had 1S. We, therefore, are 11 below the United States and 13 above the Canadian Government.
Sometimes possibly the amount of representation may be criticised by those who know least about it. I am not referring to Members of this Committee, but to critics outside. There is a very interesting illustration in regard to one of the new posts, showing the useful work that can be accomplished by an overseas afficer. I refer to the appointment of Mr. Jerram to Helsingfors, in Finland. He had been there only a very short time when in March the Finnish Government decided to order some 15 aero engines. Only one British engine was under consideration. Owing to strong competitive price-cutting by United States makers, it seemed practically certain that the order would be placed for an American engine. At this stage Mr. Jerram, the Commercial Secretary, took up the matter personally with the Finnish Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Industry. I need not go into particulars, but the
result was that in the case of this order, which it had been expected would go entirely to the representatives of industry in the United States, for 13 of the engines the order was given to Britain, for five engines of British type although being made abroad were to be supplied, and in four cases the order went to the United States. That is an illustration of a kind which, perhaps, it is not always easy to give so completely—an illustration of what our overseas representatives are so constantly doing for us. When you consider what an order of that kind means in pounds, shillings and pence, you begin to appreciate how very well justified the Department is in this expenditure.
5.0 p.m.
The next point I want to mention is about the Overseas Trade Development Council. In order to assuage the feelings of hon. Members opposite, who are always alarmed by the mention of a new committee or council, I want to assure them at once that though I appointed this new Council I at the same time exterminated an old one. It seemed to me that one of the things specially needed in a Department like the Overseas Trade Department was that we should have a small nucleus of highly qualified men, constantly thinking out the whole problem of our export trade, and that we should combine the official knowledge which was in the Department and also in the Board of Trade and other Government Departments, with the knowledge of a number of business men. In April last year I formed the new Overseas Trade Development Council, and I was fortunate enough to secure the assistance of a number of business men who kindly agreed to serve either upon the council, or upon a panel of members willing to attend when subjects of special interest to them were being considered. I also secured the support of some of my hon. Friends connected with the trade union movement, and representatives were also found from the co-operative movement, and it is under the guidance of that council and with their assistance that a number of the missions already referred to have been sent out to different parts of the world.
I wish to make one exception to that remark, and to remind the Committee
that the D'Abernon mission had already been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman who was my predecessor in office. That mission was just leaving this country at the time when the change of Government took place, so that the credit for the formation and appointment of the D'Abernon mission belongs to the right hon. Gentleman, although the subsequent work connected with the report of the mission, on its return, came to the Department during my period of office. However, we followed the example so set by our predecessors with the appointment of the three missions already referred to. I should mention that the British Economic Mission to the Far East was composed of two sections—one, which I may call the main section, was representative of various industries, and the other was composed entirely of representatives of the cotton industry and was practically financed by the cotton industry in this country. Two members served on both, thus forming a link between them. The report from which the hon. Member for Birkenhead was quoting was, I think, the report of the cotton section. The main report is only in print, and will be published in the next few days, and, while the cotton report is of special interest to those connected with that industry, I think the main report will be of profound interest to Members in all quarters of the Committee who are interested in trade in any form. I hope that it will shortly be in their hands.
There is one thing which I would like to say at this stage with regard to these missions and investigations. It may sometimes be questioned whether it is advisable or not to send out so many of them, and it may also be asked what is their value. We have approached other industries besides those which have sent out missions and investigations, and we have been told by them that they know practically all about certain countries with which they are concerned. I am now convinced, however, that nobody knows everything about any country, from the fact that some of those who have been out on these missions and investigations have returned, amazed to find how much there had been to learn even about countries which they had visited many times before. I think that it is partly due to the fact that the business man, visiting a country in the
ordinary course of his business, usually has a number of his own clients to see and also possibly a number of new people on whom he wishes to call, and his time is so fully occupied in his own special work that he has no opportunity of making a broad survey of the conditions and needs of the country. On the other hand, when such a man is sent out with two or three others on a mission of this kind, they are not definitely out for orders. They are it is true, thinking of how orders are to be procured, but not in the sense of asking for orders at that time. They are making a broad survey of the conditions, and it is very interesting to find that when they go out in that way, they discover the existence of fundamental principles which they did not realise previously.
I believe it is correct to say that the Scottish Woollen Mission which went out to the United States and returned only a few days ago, discovered that they had entirely failed to appreciate the fact that the approach to some of the great markets of the West should be made in quite a different way from that adopted by the industry at the present time. I think if it is only to realise the importance of a factor of that kind, it is worth while to undertake the small expenditure of money involved in these investigations. There is one other fact which is often overlooked, namely, the advertising value of missions of this kind. Mr. Wilson, who was Master Cutler of Sheffield, said he thought that the cutlery industry of Sheffield would have had to spend something like £20,000 in South America to procure an advertising benefit equal to that which had been gained by the visit of the mission, the total cost of which was only about £3,000 or £4,000 altogether.
I need not weary the Committee with details of other investigations which have taken place, but I would like to point out to hon. Members that representatives of my Department have gone to Scandinavia with representatives of the boot and shoe industry, as well as with representatives of the leather industry. These small investigations, carried out by one or two members of an industry accompanied by a representative of my Department, have been most satisfactory, and the representatives of industry have told me on their return how much they appre-
ciated the help which their industry received in this way from the Department. They had never realised the help that could be given by the Department until they had had the experience of travelling on one of these investigations, with a representative of the Department. It meant that time was saved, and that, when they reached certain places, the representative of the British Government there was aware that they were coming, and that in many quarters they were received in a different way from the way in which they would have been received had they been travelling in a private capacity. The fact that they were travelling with a representative of a Government Department opened many doors to them which would otherwise have been closed. The only wonder to me at the present time is that in view of the success of these small investigations I have not received many more requests from other industries for similar investigations.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead has already quoted some of the criticisms made in the reports of these missions. We are always bound to be told, as the hon. Member said, that if we repeat these criticisms we are in some way running down British trade. I do not feel that it is any advantage to be deterred from criticism by fears of that kind. I believe it is far better that we should recognise on the one hand the great qualities of British industry—later on I shall have something to say upon our complete failure to let the world know the greatness and excellence of our industries—and that on the other hand we should realise in view of world conditions how imperative it is that we should appreciate where our weakness lies in order that we may rectify it, and take advantage of the great change which must inevitably take place as soon as the present depression has expended itself. I do not want to repeat what the hon. Member for Birkenhead has said but I wish to read to the Committee a few lines from the report of the South African Mission:
If we are critical of many of our manufacturers and exporters, we would emphasise that we are so because we have received much evidence which was freely critical of the methods which they adopt. We are, of course, aware of the fact that there are many United Kingdom firms trading with South Africa to whom such criticism does not apply and who are, in every way, highly
efficient. The large proportion of the trade which we hold affords ample proof of this fact.
Bearing that statement in mind, I should like now to read two or three of the other criticisms offered by these missions. I shall not read the passage from the report of the D'Abernon Mission which has already been quoted by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, but I would like to give the Committee this statement which is also from the report of the South African Mission:
Again, we met with criticism as regards the type of goods (as distinct from their quality) which we endeavour to sell. We were told that many United Kingdom exporters continue to attempt to sell their standard lines instead of selling what the market wants. In the export trade adaptability meets with a generous reward.
The same report also says:
Much evidence was submitted to us to the effect that our failure to increase our hold upon this market is because we do not know enough about the markets in Southern Africa, we do not send enough skilled men out to study the conditions, we do not sufficiently support our local representatives, and we fail to advertise upon the scale required.
I am now going to read an extract from the report of the mission to Egypt which will, I hope, be available in a week or two. Hon. Members will recall that this mission was led by Sir Arthur Balfour, and therefore I should like to quote something of what they have to say in reference to the position in Egypt:
As a nation Great Britain does not appear to realise the need for general advertisement, except by constantly advertising that our trade declines and that our men are out of work. We can with equal truth advertise that we are by far the greatest manufacturers for export in the world, that our people, by the excellence of their work, maintain themselves on a very high standard, that our education is the best for boys and girls, that our women show the world what women can do, in peace and war, that our cloth, our machinery, our locomotives and our ships are the best, and that we hold the world's speed records on land, on water and in the air. It seems to us that we are more likely to recommend British wares and to create the right commercial atmosphere by telling the world how efficient we are than by groaning.
There is also another remark made by the Egyptian Mission evidently when in a more critical frame of mind, but, before passing to that I should like to read these few lines from the Sheffield Mission report:
It is, however, in our opinion more to our serious neglect of the South American market than to any other cause that our formerly very strong position has been so largely lost.
It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that a man who has been selected by the cutlery industry of Sheffield to be the Master Cutler, and who may, therefore, be presumed to be recognised as one of their leading business men, should have come back from that tour of South America and made such a criticism of his own industry. It indicates that at any rate there are fields which we have to explore. I do not wish to follow the right hon. Gentleman, as time would not allow, in reference to some of the remarks which he made regarding the question of price, but the Egyptian Mission, like all the other missions and investigations, have referred to it as a question of supreme importance. The Egyptian Mission says:
A complete overhaul of our cost of production is more than due. We feel strongly that there is no time to be lost. This can only be done by the co-operation of the State, financiers, employers, trade unions and the workers.
The other heading under which criticism of our methods is to be found in almost every report is that of marketing and salesmanship, and I may mention a few special cases in this connection. They make reference to the fact that, although the Government are spending something approaching £400,000 to £500,000 on the Department of Overseas Trade, and it is therefore to the benefit of industry in this country, it is amazing to what a limited extent it is made use of by business firms. As I have said constantly in speeches that I have delivered in the country, it is one of the most extraordinary things that the big combines and the big business concerns use us almost more than the smaller men, though one would naturally have expected that the smaller firms would have been more in need of our information than the large business concerns, which have great sources of information available to them.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to the question of the need of expert representatives of industry oversea. That is a question that has been before the Development Council. Our feeling is that this is a thing that ought to be done by the different trades. I believe that in the United States the
custom is for the Government Department to engage, it might be, a man in the cotton or textile industry, take him out of that industry for four or five years, and ask him to make investigations in certain lands in regard to the industry in which he is specially an expert; and, at the end of that time, he will return again to his industry, but meanwhile he has been a representative of the Government. I am not sure that in this country that method would be an easy one to follow, but it seems to me that many of the great trades might very carefully consider whether it would not be advisable at any rate to make an attempt in some countries to have a special representative who would be travelling on their behalf and watching over the interests of their trade.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the question of group selling. I believe that industry in Britain will have to realise that if we are going to attack the different markets of the world, we shall have to have our traders represented, not by what I might almost call a disorganised horde of representatives in some cases and few in others. They are never going to secure the best terms for this country unless in some way they organise for co-operative selling overseas. I remember the case of one deputation which came to our council and seemed to suggest that it was an act of God that there were about 200 of them in certain parts of the world and only about five American firms in competition with them. I can only hope that by now they have discovered that acts of God of that kind can be cured by human agency.
There is another matter which is referred to constantly, and that is the need for publicity. As a matter of fact, although it may be thought, in these days of newspaper propaganda that no country suffers from bashfulness and modesty, I am convinced that this country is far too modest. One of the representatives of the mission that went to Egypt informs me that the fact that Great Britain holds the speed records in the air, on land, and on water was quite unknown to the Egyptian people. He said that if these records had been held by any other country, they would have taken good care to see that it was widely known in the Press of the
country concerned, because while it may be looked upon partly as a sporting event everybody fully realises that it is a great testimonial to our industry and to the skill of our workers, and that, however able the man who steers the machine may be, if at the crucial moment the machine failed, there would be no record at all. Publicity will have to be faced by this country if we wish to assure our position in the world, and publicity connected with trade is a most essential matter for consideration to-day.
Then there is, I am convinced, the need for finance and trade to be linked together. I have referred to the matter in speeches in the House and in the country. It is a very difficult problem, but the complaints made are so constant that I believe there is something that seriously needs investigation. It may be due to the fact that in the past our great industries were so successful and wealthy that naturally they were able to count upon themselves for the necessary financial support that they required, but to-day disaster has fallen upon those industries, especially those connected with iron and steel, textiles, and coal, and we see that industry, if it is once again to be reorganised and placed upon a sound footing, will in all probability have to have financial assistance. It is an interesting fact—and I do not know whether hon. Members have noted it—that the reorganisation of industry in Germany was largely carried out on the initiative of finance, and that indicates how very close together in Germany finance and trade are. I believe that if finance and trade took up these problems and thought out the difficulties, it would be a good thing. It is certainly mentioned in some of our reports.
I want to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead about what has been done with regard to the recommendations of these missions. I think it must be realised by all of us that with regard to many of the things which are recommended, no Government of course, could possibly do anything beyond making them known to the industries concerned. We always attempt, and we are attempting to-day as soon as the members of a mission come back, to see that they have meetings in different parts of the country, and I have, with representatives of the missions,
visited a number of centres where they have kindly invited representatives to address Chambers of Commerce and other gatherings of that kind.
If I may take an illustration of the way in which work ought to be followed up, it is that of the D'Abernon Mission, sent out on the initiative of the late Government. We find there the realisation of a need. When we were sending the mission, business men in the Argentine were moving in the direction of the exhibition which has now been so successfully held and to which the Government of this country contributed by putting up an exhibit of their own at a cost of about £22,000. We also realised the great opportunity for the promotion of aircraft in South America and it was for that reason that the "Eagle" was sent from this country, costing the Department £8,000. The Development Council interviewed some of those specially connected with South America, and it was while representatives of the Sheffield cutlery industry were talking to us about the prospects of the cutlery industry in Sheffield that one of our members made the proposal to the Master Cutler that he himself should go to South America, so that the decision of the Master Cutler to go there was the direct outcome of our follow up methods in regard to the D'Abernon Mission.
A smaller point was that the cable rates, which were criticised by Lord D'Abernon and his colleagues, have been considerably reduced. They also made representations in regard to our representatives in that part of the world, and since then three additional posts in the commercial diplomatic service have been filled, being one at Bogota, one at Rio, and one at Buenos Ayres. Then, in regard to the other missions, we have, as I say, in all cases either had or are going to have meetings with the members so that the trades may be informed of what the delegations have found. We have also had meetings with the chambers of commerce in various parts of the country.
One of the results has been that the boot and shoe industry have already, I think, taken action in regard to group selling in Europe; the formation in the leather industry of an oversea trade com-
mittee to consider the same point is another result; in Sheffield a special section of the Chamber of Commerce has been formed to consider the South American question and the problem of group salesmanship; and exhibitions have been held in Manchester and Sheffield. I may say to the hon. Member for Birkenhead that I entirely agree with what he said that the important thing is as to how far we are going to follow up and try to see that the recommendations of the missions are carried out; and everything that my Department can do to help we shall attempt to do, but I think he will agree with me that finally the result really must rest in the hands of industry. These criticisms have been made not by representatives of the Civil Service, but by business men, and in most cases men who are the leaders in the various sections of industry that they represent. If industry ignores what they say, the responsibility must rest upon industry. I can only myself take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to those representatives of industry who have given up a great deal of time in going on these missions, and to the business men who have helped on the Oversea Trade Development Council and to my hon. Friends who represent Labour and who have also given me invaluable assistance at the council's meetings.
There is only one other thing that I would like to say in conclusion. As I have said before, we are passing through a great industrial crisis. We see the changes that are needed, if industry at home is to be reorganised. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman who said that what was needed was that these changes should take place as speedily as possible. That is the view of Sir Ernest Thompson and those who have been investigating the position in China. We cannot forever be discussing the action to be taken with regard to the reorganisation of these industries and in the same way, with regard to oversea trade, we have to recognise to-day that we are facing quite a different problem from that which those who represented industry had to face in the days before the War. We are facing a world competition such as our fathers never thought of and never knew. Large numbers of countries are competing with
us for trade which once we so easily held. We can only hold it to-day by adopting new methods and by being constantly ready to change as we see the changing needs around us. What is equally essential as to be absolutely informed upon those markets in which we wish to make headway.
I think too that these missions have shown us that the export trade of this country is not coming to an end. I believe that the world will find an expanding market as the years go on. I think the South African Mission has shown us—and that perhaps is a thing that we do not realise—that the great coloured races will increasingly be demanding more and more of our goods. At first they are wanting something which may not be quite of the quality that this country has usually given, but we have to consider whether we can supply something which we may think is cheap and may even rather contemptuously look at to-day. When hon. Members see the report of the Far Eastern Mission, I think that it will satisfy them that one day the great eastern nations will become large purchasers of the goods of this nation. China will ultimately desire to be developed, and the nation that will develop China is the nation that will be prepared to enter into that vast field, when, under more stable government and with some of their internal difficulties removed, the people of China are able to express their desire for a greater measure of comfort with many of those necessities of life that the people of this country take it for granted are essential for them. So there is no need to despair of our export trade. So long as we are prepared and equipped, when the change in the great world tide takes place, with a machine that is absolutely up-to-date, there need be no fear of the final result.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I want to say a little on the subject of trade between this country and Russia. If any hon. Member, from whatever part of the House he speaks, mentions Russia, the subsequent proceedings are liable to be somewhat stormy, and reason is liable to give way to prejudice. I (hasten to assure the Committee that I do not propose to touch upon controversial matters, which would be better discussed under the Foreign Office Vote; I merely want
to call attention to certain interesting facts in connection with our trade with Russia, and to ask the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department if he can throw a little further light upon them. The first point to which I want to call attention is a comparison of the balance of trade existing between this country and Russia and that between the United States of America and Russia. In answer to a question in the House on the 20th April, the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department stated that, whereas the imports from this country to Russia exceeded the exports to Russia by £95,000,000, the exports from the United States to Russia exceeded imports by some £81,000,000—a very striking contrast. This was for the period from 1924 to 1930. I was struck with these figures, and I thought that it would be interesting to take a shorter period and the most recent available, and to study the figures in a little more detail. I therefore took the year 1930. I found that, taking the returns from the British customs, the exports from Russia to this country amounted in round figures to £34,250,000, whereas the exports from this country to Russia amounted to only £6,750,000. If you correct that figure by adding re-exports from this country to Russia, it brings the total figure to £9,250,000, against the £34,250,000 which we imported from Russia.

Mr. HAYCOCK: What about shipping?

Mr. LEWIS: I am coming to that in a moment. The figures I have given show that there was a clear balance of trade in favour of Russia of £25,000,000 in 1930. The hon. Member mentions shipping. In order to study these figures a little further, I thought it desirable to work out not merely the actual balance of trade which I have just given, but the balance of payments. To do that, it is necessary to make allowance for the fact that in this trade Russia makes use of our shipping, insurance and banking facilities, but it is a little difficult to give an exact figure for the value of those services. I have seen them authoritatively estimated at anything between £6,000,000 and £8,000,000 for 1930. I propose for the purpose of my calculation to take the mean figure of £7,000,000. Another point that has to be considered, if we take that figure into consideration, is the fact that
during that year there was increased indebtedness to British firms and banks on the part of Russia. There again it is hard to give an exact figure, but I do not think that the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department will challenge a figure of somewhere about £10,000,000. Summing up these figures, we come to the following result: British exports and re-exports to Russia were £9,250,000, plus payments for services rendered by shipping, insurance and banking, £7,000,000, making a total of £16,250,000 on the one side; on the other side, we have Russian exports to this country £34,250,000, an increased indebtedness of £10,000,000, making a total of £44,250,000. The balance of payments in favour of Russia during 1930 was, therefore, somewhere about £28,000,000.
No Member of the Committee will deny that, from the point of view of this country, that is a most unfortunate state of affairs. It is, of course, desirable that we should, where we buy goods in large quantities, sell our own goods in exchange for them, and an unfavourable trade balance of this kind is bad for the trade of this country. You will probably consider, Mr. Dunnico, that this is not the moment to discuss in detail the question of export credits, which are referred to in the next Vote. Therefore, on that point I will only say that in considering this very heavy adverse balance of trade payments, we have to remember that it occurs after we have applied an artificial stimulus to our trade with Russia in the form of export credits on a scale unparalleled in any part of the world. As the hon. Gentleman explained to the House a short time ago in answer to a question, the amount of export credits in respect of transactions with Russia since the present Government took office is roughly equal to the amount of export credit allowed to the whole of the rest of the world in the same time.
I want to put this to the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department: First, is he satisfied with the present trade balance of payments as between this country and Russia: and secondly, having regard to the fact that Russia's trading is done through the Government, and therefore that one transaction can be much more easily set off against another than where it is done by two independent private firms in another country, can he tell the Committee why it is necessary,
with an adverse balance of payments of something like £28,000,000 in one year, to provide export credits to foster the trade at all?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister would not be allowed to answer that question on this Vote.

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White); I have never heard a speech in this House more condemnatory of those who are in key positions to conduct the trade and industry of this country. Every word of the speech was justified. I agree with the hon. Member in his last remarks in which he welcomed the opportunity of discussing the work of the Overseas Trade Department because, as he said, this was the first time that the activities of this Department had been discussed in the House. We on these benches have always believed that the best kind of economy is wise spending; and that every penny spent on this Department has been of that character. The Department has been booming and advertising this country and its trade. Previously we have been inclined to advertise our woes instead of our wares. This Department has gone out of its way to see that once in a way we advertised our wares in a splendid way, as they did at the British Industrial Exhibition at the Olympia, which directed the attention of the world to British trade, and as they did in the splendid display at the cotton exhibition at the White City. These were two admirable actions that did credit to the Department and gave a fillip to British trade which has never before been equalled. That is the first reason why I wish to congratulate the Minister upon the admirable work of the Department.
That work has been concerned with our export trade, and as I am particularly interested in the cotton industry, 80 per cent. of which is for the export trade, I have been interested in this work. The Committee will be interested to hear one or two figures with regard to the cotton export trade. The world export trade has increased very considerably, but our proportionate share of it has fallen off. The export of manufactured goods from this country in 1913 was £413,000,000. In 1930 it was £439,000,000, an increase of only
£26,000,000 in 17 years, despite the marked rise in prices. That is a figure to be noted and pondered over. Our cotton exports for 1913 totalled 7,075,252,000 linear yards. In 1930 they had dropped to 2,490,450,000 linear yards—a terrible drop.
We sent out two missions to investigate why we have lost this great trade and what steps we can take to regain it, one going to Egpyt, led by Sir Arthur Balfour, and the other to the Far East, led by Sir Ernest Thompson. These two missions have stressed several points which it behoves Lancashire, particularly, to notice if she wishes to increase her export trade in cotton yarns and goods. One of the chief points stressed, that of costs, has been referred to by a right hon. Gentleman from the Opposition Benches. These missions say that we have lost our trade because of our high costs, and they go on to say that sacrifices must be made. In Lancashire we are getting very familiar with the observations "The cost of production is too high" and "Sacrifices must be made." The latter sentence invariably means one thing—that wages must be reduced. The only thing the workers are asked to share in are the sacrifices. No workers have made more sacrifices on behalf of their trade than the cotton operatives of Lancashire. They should not be asked to make any more.
I believe there are costs in Lancashire's trade which can be reduced. There is one heavy item in the costs of Lancashire cotton goods which could be immediately done away with without affecting the efficiency of the industry. I refer to the thousands of unnecessary middlemen who are clinging to the cotton industry like leeches and taking an unnecessary toll, which goes to increase the price of the article. Another way of reducing costs would be to bring the four sections of the cotton industry together and to treat the industry as one unit. Another would be by the bulk purchase of the raw cotton. It might also be advisable to have one trade union for all cotton operatives in Lancashire. Further, we ought to establish efficient selling agencies abroad, so that we might know with certainty that we had in foreign countries people specially interested in pushing the sale of British cotton goods. A member of one of the missions to
which I have referred told me that he went to the representative of one British house who was supposed to be interested in the sale of cotton goods and asked "How is it that you are not pushing British cotton goods, as you are a British house?" The answer came quite pat: "If we can make more profit by selling Chinese goods, then, although we are a British house, we shall certainly push Chinese goods, and your cotton goods will have to look after themselves." We ought to have selling agencies abroad definitely interested in pushing the sale of British cotton goods.
High shipping freights, also, are an unnecessary burden upon British trade, and I suggest to the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department that he should get into touch with the Imperial Shipping Committee to see whether steps cannot be taken to reduce the present high shipping freights. I would recommend, further, that we should take a leaf out of Japan's book and go in for national propaganda. One of the engineering members of the mission which went out to the Far East said that in the many engineering shops out there which he visited he found on the office table leaflets and propaganda from every country except Britain. Every other country was alive to the advantage of pushing their goods by advertisement, but in none of the offices into which he went did he find any illustrated catalogues, or any catalogues at all, pushing British machinery goods. A third suggestion I would like to make is that we should look into the question of the education of Chinese and Japanese students. The mission found when they were in Japan that the heads of some of the firms were young Japanese who had been educated in American universities, and that when they returned to Japan they were influenced with American ideas, and had a bias towards America when it came to placing orders. The same thing was found in China. It would be a good thing if we could encourage Chinese and Japanese students to come over here to our English universities and could impress them with our ideas, as the Americans have impressed them with their ideas. Then, when those young men went back to their own countries to occupy key positions they would have a bias in our favour instead of in favour
of America. In Egypt the French people are teaching 24,000 Egyptians the French language—that is the number being taught at any given time; and the Italians are teaching 3,500 Egyptians the Italian language; whereas the English are teaching only 3,200 Egyptians the English language. That state of affairs is having a marked effect on the trade of this country in Egypt, and it calls for our earnest consideration.
I should not like to feel that we are going to stint this Department for money in the splendid work they are doing. It would be a fatal mistake. We ought to give them every encouragement to send out missions and deputations to get into personal touch with traders in foreign countries and bring back information for the benefit of the whole industry and to the offices of the Department, and afterwards industrialists in this country ought to be able to go to the Department and avail themselves of that information which has been collected for their benefit. If we do that we shall have taken a big step in the right direction. The need for introducing efficiency is a note which is struck by all these missions. In my humble opinion the "captains of industry" in this country are not sufficiently quick in the uptake, they are not adaptable to changing circumstances, they have far too much political bias. A member of a deputation from the light leather industries which went to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Holland told me that in those countries the British manufacturer was spoken of as being biased and as still adopting the attitude of "take it or leave it"; and, unlike foreigners, he does not keep buyers informed of what he has to sell. In short, those markets are very much neglected. It is up to us to see that the attitude of "take it or leave it" is altered. There are far too many countries ready to supply the needs of foreign markets, and if we in this country do not adapt ourselves and are not ready to meet the wants of foreign customers we cannot grumble if we lose trade.
My last point is that the various missions have emphasised the fact that we are lacking in directing capacity, that we have too many men in key positions—and I know that this applies to the
cotton trade—whose only qualification for being there is that they happen to be the sons of their fathers, they have no other qualifications. We are definitely lacking in good guidance in industry. I am supported in that statement by the Leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords, who said just recently, referring to the Beaverbrook-Rothermere campaign:
If Lord Beaverbrook wants to know why we cannot compete in the markets of the world, let him read the Balfour report, and he will find that the essential cause is the out-of-date equipment and organisation of our factories and, more important still, the low standard in their higher control.
That fact cannot be too much emphasised. I close by saying that I am pleased to have had this opportunity to pay my tribute to a Department which I believe is doing wonderful work.

6.0 p.m.

Major NATHAN: The Committee have had the advantage of an important and interesting statement from the Minister as to the activities of his Department and its lay-out. As the Minister mentioned, this is the first occasion on which there has been a Debate of such length and diversity upon the Department, although it is one of the most important in the service of the State, and, in my belief, one of the most competent and efficient. There is no Department whose operations have a greater hearing upon finding a permanent remedy for unemployment by the absorption of our people into productive industry. Stress has been laid by other speakers and by the Minister himself upon the importance of advertisement and publicity. It is vital that that publicity and advertisement should be of the right kind, and upon the right kind of subject. We are rather too apt to allow it to be thought abroad that we are in the last throes of a struggle to retain any trade at all, and that all our industries are incompetent and on the verge of being put out of action. Nothing is further from the truth, and, although I am unable to find figures later than 1929 for this purpose—I take them from the statistics of British trade and foreign industry published last year. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, in spite of all the buffeting misfortunes which this country has
endured since the War, the proportion of the world's export trade that this country possesses is down by only 2½ per cent. since 1913. Our proportion was 13.11. per cent. in 1913, including Ireland, and it is 10.86 per cent. to-day. It is true that the proportion is down, but the remarkable thing is how little it is down. There is this further fact that, in comparison with other countries, we are down by that very small percentage, and yet if the figures relating to the quantity of our exports are taken, as compared with 1924, our export trade in terms of quantity has increased from 100 in 1924 to 108 in 1929. Surely those are facts to which we should give publicity, and it is only just to our people that we should draw attention to the extraordinary resiliency of our industries in face of every kind of competition and difficulty. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, if you take the exports on a per capita basis, our exports are nearly £16 per head of the population, and we are first compared with Germany, France, Japan and the United States on a per capita basis. We give place only to Belgium and Holland, and I think this may be due to the fact that these two last countries have relatively Free Trade. I would urge that every step should be taken within the orbit of possibility to make it clear to the world at large, and to our own people, that the British export trade is not on its last legs; on the contrary, we ought to point out that during the change in the general situation, it needs only a spirit of determination and a vigorous and aggressive initiative both in our productive work at home and in our trading arrangements abroad to restore us once again to the high position we held not long ago.
The Minister to-day drew attention to the relationship of the Overseas Department in this country and the American Department of Commerce. I am interested in the figures given by the Minister for the purpose of considering whether the staff here is adequate and whether the arrangements for their distribution are suitable for the purpose of maintaining our trade abroad and increasing it as time goes by. I was not able to follow the figures given by the Minister; perhaps it is my fault, and no doubt he will correct me if I have misunderstood him in
any particular. A comparison has been made with the staff of the American Department of Commerce, and it shows that whereas we have some 85 Diplomatic representatives and trade commissioners, the foreign trade officers of the American Department of Commerce number no fewer than 188, although the American foreign trade is nothing like so important to them as ours to us. The number of consular officials who come under the Department of the Overseas Trade number rather under 250, as compared with, approximately, 700 in the American service.
I have taken these two services as far as possible on a comparable basis, making the necessary exclusions, but it does appear from the figures, as far as they are available to an ordinary Member of this House, that, in view of the immense importance of our export trade, and having regard to the figures in relation to the volume of American trade, we are somewhat under-staffed. It is noticeable that, apart from the trade commissioners in the British Commonwealth of Nations, of the remaining 50 trade representatives some 44 are confined to Europe, and only some 19 are representatives in countries outside Europe and outside the British Commonwealth of Nations. It seems to me very remarkable that so small a number of officials, however competent, should be called on to perform the difficult and responsible functions entrusted to them, even with the assistance of the Consular service.
As regards the Consular service, it must be borne in mind that it is really underpaid and over-worked, and although an extraordinary variety of functions and duties devolve upon a consul—he has political duties to perform in connection with the diplomatic service, in connection with passport visas and civil duties in connection with marriages of British subjects abroad, and all the rest of it—and his time is largely absorbed in functions which have no relation at all to industry, yet on the top of his political functions, his legal functions and his social functions, which are of some importance in the case of a British consul-general abroad, he is expected to perform a vast amount of commercial work, meet commercial agents and exporters, supply detailed reports concerning particular
firms, industries, and areas, and compile trade lists, commodity reports, and fulfil all the duties of a commercial representative. In face of all this, the consul abroad is apt to be looked down upon by the other branches of the service and by his colleagues at the Foreign Office.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether this Vote is concerned with the consular service. It refers to certain commercial diplomatic services, which are a different branch from the consular service.

Major NATHAN: If I have fallen into error I regret it, but I will ask for your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, on this point. I believe that the consular service is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Overseas Trade, and am I to understand from your Ruling that it is out of order to refer to the relations of the consular service with the Department of Overseas Trade?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with Vote 4 of Class 6. So far as Vote 4 is concerned, I see that it does raise matters concerning commercial diplomatic services, particulars of which are given on page 51, but I see no reference to the consular service as such. This arises on another Vote.

Major NATHAN: I was anxious to put in a word for the Consular service, but I must leave that to another occasion. With regard to the allocation of the officers at the disposal of the Minister, they should be sent to specific areas, and there should be no country with which England carries on trade where there is no official allocated, and no country should be left to look after itself in this respect. If we look through the list of British representatives abroad, and diplomatic commercial attachés and trade commissioners, it will be found that a considerable number of the smaller countries are without any representative of the Overseas Trade Department at all. It seems to me that that is a grave mistake, and that there should be no country in which there is not someone with an office and a position of authority and responsibility acting on behalf of the Department of Overseas Trade.
I observe, too, that there is often a considerable discrepancy between the salaries paid to those occupying positions in important countries from the trade point of view, and whom one would naturally expect to be paid on a scale commensurate with the importance of their posts, and the salaries of those in posts which are less important from the trade point of view. I will give an instance. In Colombia, there is a commercial secretary, Grade II, with a salary of £1,728, including a local allowance of £300. In Denmark, there is only an assistant to a commercial diplomatic attaché, who is in complete charge, with a salary of £550, including £300 local allowance. Nevertheless, looking at the trade and the potentialities of trade with Denmark as compared with Colombia, one finds that our exports to Denmark were over £10,500,000, and our imports from, Denmark £56,000,000; whereas our total trade with Colombia, import and export, was only just over £5,000,000. There seems to me to be something irrational about this discrepancy.
The American Department of Commerce has developed a system to which I would ask the Minister to give consideration. It arranges, in various places, annual regional conferences. In 1930 four such conferences were held, one in Buenos Aires one in Ottawa, one in Stockholm, and one in Panama City. To these conferences the trade commissioners, or those who correspond with them in position, and the commercial attaches are invited, together with representatives of trade likely to be concerned with the industries of the areas in question, and programmes, marketing facilities and marketing arrangements are discussed. From regional conferences of this kind, a coherent programme and a new technique is apt to arise, and I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should consider the holding of regional annual conferences of this kind in various parts of the world. Of course, the agenda would have to be carefully planned, and British firms and trade associations interested in the trade of the areas in question might well be asked to send competent and authoritative representatives to these conferences. I would suggest that for Latin America meetings might be held annually in rotation at Buenos
Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Valparaiso and Panama, and that in the case of North America, including the West Indies, meetings might be held, also in rotation, in Montreal, New York, Jamaica, Vancouver and New Orleans, while for the Baltic and Scandinavian countries regional conferences might be held in Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen. Naturally, there are other places and other areas that might be considered, such as the Far East, Africa, and so forth. I suggest to the Minister that conferences of that kind might be of very great value to our industry at home, and would also do much to attract interest to it, to advertise it and to give it publicity in the regions where the conferences are held.
The American Department of Commerce has another arrangement which, as it seems to me, might well be considered here. The Department has a district office in every State. The Department of Overseas Trade has, I understand, merely its one office in London. Why should not the Department set up branch offices at industrial centres like Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds and so on? These need not be actual replicas of the London office, but at least they would be able to bring the Department far more closely into contact with industry at the exact spot where industry is" and where executive action is needed. That would make the task of the Minister himself rather that of a national co-ordinating authority than that of one who is himself responsible for maintaining all the contacts with industry.
The great advantage of regional offices at home, just as it would he in the case of regional conferences abroad, would he that they would attract publicity and attention to the work of the Department. The Minister said, and I do not think it can be too strongly emphasised, that the Value of the work of the Department depends, as largely as upon anything else, upon an efficient publicity and advertising campaign, and I suggest to him that these offices would have advantages in that direction as well as in the direction of simplifying procedure and bringing manufacturers into direct and easier touch with the Department. One of the difficulties with which the Minister has to contend at the present time is the apathy of
the manufacturer. If the manufacturer will not go to him, let the Minister, by means of district offices, go to the manufacturer. With regard to the Department, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that there is a tendency towards apoplexy at the centre and atrophy at the circumference. I should like to consider, if time permitted, the desirability of merging with the Department of Overseas Trade the Empire Marketing Board, for already the functions of these two bodies are closely intermingled. Each performs services for the other, and I believe that economy and efficiency would result if they were merged into one.
I asked a question a year ago, when this Vote was before the Committee, and I have repeated it on various occasions since, as to the position of the Special List to which the Minister distributes information that he may receive from abroad. It is a matter for the greatest regret that, as far as my information goes, there are only 2,600 firms who are on the Special List. The subscription is only a small one, and for that subscription they are entitled to be kept by the Minister in touch with every movement. It is a very feeble proportion, considering the importance of our export trade. The American figures are noteworthy. In 1930, the American Foreign Commerce Service Department had 450,000 detailed reports of foreign firms on its books, and 161,000 specific requests for them. It had details of 675,000 foreign importers, wholesalers and commission agents, 185,000 foreign manufacturers, and 135,000 foreign professional men; and—this is the point that I wish to make—no fewer than 741,000 of these lists were sent out in the year 1929–30 as the result of specific requests from manufacturers in the United States. I should welcome an intimation from the Minister that, I will not say 740,000, but even 250,000 lists were sent out to British manufacturers in response to specific requests. I am afraid that in this direction, as in so many others, the apathy of our manufacturers shows itself.
The Department, of course, will have considered more than once the suggestion that it should itself organise exhibitions, and I do not propose to enter upon a discussion of that suggestion now, but I should like to know what the Department has done with regard to following up the recent exhibition in South America.
Has it arranged for articles in the newspapers? Has it arranged with manufacturers for co-operative advertising campaigns, so as to seize the opportunity, while the momentum is still active, of encashing the results of that exhibition, the success of which has been so much due, as previous speakers have said, to the untiring efforts and energies of the Prince of Wales? I would also ask whether the Ministry feels that it is possible to take more active steps to advertise abroad, and also in this country, the advantages and benefits of the Export Credits Scheme. I trust that the Minister will recognise that, as is the fact, the suggestions that I have made have been inspired by the desire to be helpful to the Department in the pursuit of encouragement of the export trade, which is now, as ever, a prime interest of this country.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) concluded by saying that his remarks were inspired by a desire to help the country. I am perfectly certain that such was the case, and, in all the discussions that we have had from time to time regarding the activities of the Department of Overseas Trade, Members in all quarters of the House have welcomed the opportunity of trying to do what they could, without any partisan spirit, to add something to the store of general knowledge which will be helpful in the reduction of unemployment and the increase of our trade. That has been entirely the case to-day, and in no speech was it more outstanding than in the very excellent and helpful speech with which the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) opened the Debate. I was very sorry to hear the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade say what I know was only too true in my time, namely, that the Department cannot yet get enough firms to come and consult with them, not for the benefit of the Department, but for their own benefit. I found that difficulty during the three years I was at the Department, and I am sorry to hear from the hon. Gentleman that it still exists. Further, what saddened me very much in my time—I hope that the hon. Gentleman may have been able to alter the
position—was that I could never get the leaders of the trade unions to come to the Department to consult with its very able and eager officers, so that they might learn from the various heads of the Department where the weaknesses were in our goods or our methods, in the way in which we were producing our goods, or in their prices, and could go back to their members and say, "We have been consulting with the Department of Overseas Trade"—

Mr. SANDHAM: And down with your wages!

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member likes to make a speech, I am sure we shall all be delighted to listen to his very interesting and erudite remarks in due course. The leaders of the trade unions could then go back to their members and say, "We have been consulting with the Department of Overseas Trade and the reasons why we cannot get orders for our goods in this or that part of the world are as follows." It would be helpful for them to see the difficulties eye to eye with the Department, for they know that the Department is a non-political institution. They would then see what the conditions are that cause us to lose orders. Reference has been made to the missions which have gone abroad to seek out openings for our trade, and the Minister referred to the order we got for aeroplanes from Helsingfors. The reports of those missions and the experience of Helsingfors give proof over and over again that our manufacturers will not grasp the fact that goods do not sell themselves, and that they must get on their legs and go out to fight for orders. The trouble with our trade—I have been in trade all my life—has been that in many cases our manufacturers have not taken the physical trouble to get into personal touch with their markets. Goods do not sell themselves.
I want to deal with two points with regard to which I gave notice to the hon. Gentleman. A mission recently returned from China and told us about Chinese trade. When people tell us that Chinese trade is bad, they make a great mistake. Notwithstanding the stupendous upset in China and the state of chaos in which the country now is, there is 23 per cent. in volume more business
done with China than before the War, but we are not getting our share of it. We are only getting two-thirds of the trade that we got in 1913. The trade has not disappeared. It has gone to Japan and Germany. I hope hon. Members will not throw back the word "wages." I am not going to deal with that. The reason why our trade has gone from us, as shown by the report of this mission is that our goods are too dear. One of the reasons why they are too dear was lightly touched upon by the Minister, who said he had not time to deal with it—the question of freights. This question of freights operates very considerably to the disadvantage of our export trade with the East. It was dealt with in the Balfour Mission's report, although I have not yet seen the printed copy of it. Statements have been made by exporting houses in the North that one of the reasons why our Eastern trade has left us is the high rate of dues on freights of shipping going through the Suez Canal.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): I am not sure that this arises on the Vote. I should like to know from the Minister whether he has any control over freights in the Suez Canal.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I submit that the Government own 44 per cent. of the shares in the Canal? We have three British Government directors upon the Board. We put questions to the Minister a few days ago about the Suez Canal. We are now talking about the missions to the East. They are reporting upon the losses of our cotton trade owing to the goods being too dear. They talk about freights. There has been the report of a mission to Egypt through which the Suez Canal runs. The Government is part owner of the Suez Canal, and the hon. Gentleman says he is looking into the practices of the Suez Canal.

The CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, there are three directors merely nominated by the Prime Minister to' the company. There is no control over the company. If it arises at all, I think it should arise on the Mercantile Marine Vote, but I should like to hear from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any responsibility.

Mr. GILLETT: I think the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I
never said I was looking into the question of freights in the Suez Canal, but the general question of freights has been raised in one or two reports of missions. If I said anything which gave the hon. Gentleman to think so, it is not a fact. I am not looking into the Suez Canal freights. If they were going to be looked into, it would be by the Board of Trade which is responsible.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will not contest your Ruling, Sir Robert, but here it is in black and white:
Steps are being taken to obtain full information of the present practice of the Suez Canal Company.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentle-man must read on.

Mr. SAMUEL: "in regard to the placing of orders for stores and the like, and the position will then be duly considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1931; col. 32, Vol. 252.]
I am going to deal with that position.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot.

Mr. SAMUEL: Then I will deal with it when the Mercantile Marine Vote comes up.
The other point I want to deal with is this: A few days ago we were told that there would be some rearrangement of the Anglo-French commercial agreement. We are very glad to know that we have extremely competent commercial diplomatic service officers who come under this Vote. I have every reason to know how helpful they are. I should like to hear what they are doing about arrangements for the new Anglo-French commercial agreement. I am given to understand that the commercial attaches under the Department of Overseas Trade have been in conference with Mr. Elbel, Director of French Commercial Agreements, and with Mr. Arnal, a representative of the French Foreign Office, who have been studying the outlines of a new Anglo-French commercial agreement. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us what information he can. The present Anglo-French agreement was made in 1882. There, has been considerable discussion for some time upon the use to us of the most-favoured-nation clause. What arrangements have been made to reconstruct that clause? If France gives us any favouritism under
that clause, she has to give it to other countries who do not give to the French what we give them. We give a free market to French goods coming here. Under the most-favoured-nation clause, other nations who tax French goods get the same benefit from France as we get. That is to say the most-favoured-nation clause is entirely sterile so far as we are concerned. The French Government have issued this communique:
The French Government cannot remain indifferent to the Protectionist tendencies which are clearly shown in Great Britain and which, should they triumph, would seriously damage our interests in a country which, up to now, has been France's best customer.
I think when our commercial counsellors consult with the French representatives about the most-favoured-nation clause, they should construct two types of the most-favoured-nation clause, one for those who give free markets, like we do to the French, and one for those who do not. At present there is nothing in the most-favoured-nation clause of the slightest help to our goods. I think the French, if they have it in view that we are tending towards a Protectionist policy, should bear in mind that if they do not treat Britain generously in 1931, when we have no remedy except persuasion, they cannot expect us to treat them over generously when the change comes in our economic policy.

The CHAIRMAN: This is not criticism of the policy of this Government. It is really criticism of the French Government.

Mr. SAMUEL: I make this request or criticism that the Government should settle on a policy when arranging about these new commercial agreements with France so that we get a treaty with a most-favoured-nation clause of the type which will be of some use to us.

Mr. BENSON: It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), but I certainly welcomed his opening remarks with regard to the future of British trade. He pointed out that England is still the greatest exporting nation in the world. This Debate gives one a contrary impression. Everyone is as melancholy as he can possibly be, and everyone is
trying to be cheerful because he thinks it would be good for trade if he could succeed in being cheerful. The various reports that the Department of Overseas Trade has issued do not depress me as much as they seem to have depressed other Members. There is a certain amount of shade in them, but there is a great deal of light and relief. One of the things that should give us ground for congratulation is that they appear to have diagnosed one of the main causes of our trouble, and once you have a correct diagnosis you are half way towards a cure. There is unanimity amongst the reports that defective selling organisation—one might almost say the complete absence of selling organisation—is very largely responsible for the condition in which British industry finds itself to-day. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) referred to the fact that price is also mentioned as a factor in our difficulties. Price cannot be the supreme factor in our difficulties, otherwise we should not be the largest exporting nation in the world. The fact that we export more than any other nation shows that our prices in the bulk of cases are not too high and where we are up in price it is generally because an inferior article is undercutting our superior article which necessarily must find a higher price.
There is one criticism which I should like to make of the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. He quoted a tale about shovels. I find it very difficult, with the best will in the world, to believe that that really did happen in Peru, because shovels are the one particular thing in which we stand supreme in the world-spades and shovels—and particularly so in South America. If he had applied it to another article or to another country, I could have believed it, but in the circumstances I cannot do so. I think that the question of our selling organisation is really far more important than the question of price. I was sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) seize on the question of price and suggest that our troubles were due to taxation, by which, I assume, he meant social legislation, and to trade union regulations. Various industries are succeeding despite social legislation and taxation, and despite trade union conditions and restrictions,
and where they are succeeding, it is very largely due to the fact that they have energetic captains of industry who are supplying the initiative. I will quote on this point from the speech of Sir Harry McGowan, the chairman of the Imperial Chemical Industries, at the last annual meeting. Speaking of the foreign trade of the Imperial Chemical Industries, he said:
For the past four or five years the companies' export trade has shown marked expansion.
Marked expansion in spite of high taxation and trade union regulations!
The strength had lain in the establishment of their own widespread selling organisations in the respective markets.
Provided the manufacturers of this country can put a selling organisation into the overseas markets as efficient as that of foreign countries, they have nothing to fear from the cost of production, even if it is largely due to social legislation, taxation and the like. Largely, I believe, our trouble is due to our extraordinary inefficiency in selling organisation. We have had every advantage in the past. We have a reputation for quality and we have a good will, but our manufacturers have, undoubtedly, rested upon their oars. One finds that fact referred to repeatedly in the reports of the Department of Overseas Trade. Just as there is a general consensus of opinion upon the diagnosis of our trouble, so there is an extraordinary unanimity in the suggestions which are made in the various reports of a remedy. These reports, written by the various trade commissioners and trade secretaries in different countries, written on the spot, almost invariably recommend the same thing—joint selling organisations and cooperation. When it is a question of a report, not from a Government official or a commercial secretary, but a special economic mission like the D'Abernon mission in South America, and the coal mission which went to investigate the Scandinavian coal trade, every one of the economic missions which have inquired into the various markets—those missions come back with the same reports and make the same strong recommendation of co-operative selling. I do not want to weary the Committee with quotations, but there is one from the D'Abernon report which is so apposite
that I feel that I must quote it. In page 49, it says:
Forms of combined selling in the South American markets have been tried by British traders in a small number of trades with shining success, but there is not enough of it.
That is the tenor of a very large number of suggestions of not only the D'Abernon Report, but of every one of the economic reports which have been issued. Cooperative selling, of course, is by no means a new system and it has been tried out. We have had one or two examples of important co-operative selling organisations working very successfully in this country. There is the British Steel Exports' Association, and there is the Association of Machine Tool Manufacturers, both of which are thoroughly successful. There is an extraordinary organisation in Japan dealing with the export of British motor cycles, the British Motor Cycle Traders' Association of Japan, an association of competing agents formed for the definite purpose of pushing British motor cycles in the Japanese market, but these are the exceptions out of a vast amount of disorganised and chaotic selling.
What is the value of pious expressions? It is not the first time that the suggestion of co-operation has been made. The year 1930–31 is not the first year in which these suggestions have appeared in the reports of the Department of Overseas Trade. It is not the first time it has been suggested in this House. But what value is to be attached merely to pious expressions of opinion? If we are to judge by the past, very little indeed. There was a remark made by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department which I did not quite understand. I think he was referring to a comment made by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead on the subsidising of Japanese exports. I have his words here—" No Government can do anything." I am not sure whether he was referring to the suggestion that the Government should take a leaf out of the book of Japan and seriously tackle the question of joint selling abroad. If I misunderstood him, I hope that he will correct me.
Frankly, we have to tackle the question of overseas co-operation and organised selling in a more direct and effective manner than by merely expressing opinions. It is not an easy matter to
achieve. There are many very big stumbling blocks. It is possible for an organisation of the capacity and size of the Imperial Chemical Industries to establish its own selling organisation, but what about the small firms with a capital, say, of £10,000, £20,000 or £30,000, selling a small proportion of their output to South America, another small proportion to Central America and other proportions, say, to South Africa or India? How can they attempt to establish a selling organisation? They cannot. They have to depend (upon agents who are just as willing to sell German goods as they are to sell English goods. The only hope of getting a really efficient selling organisation there, is by joining up with other firms in a similar or allied industry and forming a joint selling organisation.
Against that one has to contend with these difficulties. You have, first of all, the extraordinary conservatism, the suspicion and the lack of initiative which ties down a firm to the old methods. That, in itself, is a psychological bar of very great importance. But there is an even more important thing than the psychological inadaptability; there is the very important matter of financial risk. It is a big matter to establish an efficient sales organisation in a market which is only touching a small fraction of one's manufactures. There is bound to be a loss for a short time, for two or three years after the establishment of a selling organisation. It is here that the Department of Overseas Trade should step in. They can perform two very important functions. They can supply the initiative. They can practically take firms by the scruff of the neck and say, "You have to consider this problem." They must not merely depend upon pious opinions, but can go to the traders. They have their staff. The hon. Gentleman himself goes up and down the country delivering speeches. Surely it is possible to bring the question of joint selling organisations right up against the trades so that they cannot neglect or ignore it.
7.0 p.m.
I think we should be justified entirely in realising that money spent in a guarantee against loss for a period of years—two, three or five years—on the part of a joint selling organisation would be money well spent. Co-operative
societies should be formed. The Department of Overseas Trade should take the initiative and should form a co-operative association for, let us say, the cutlery trade for the Argentine, and should be prepared to guarantee a very considerable proportion of the cost over a period of several years until the organisation really got going. If some steps such as those were taken, if instead of merely expressing pious opinions, the Department were enabled to take the initiative and, what is more important still, to back up that initiative by guaranteeing a proportion of the cost, considerable progress could be made. I am certain that if we compared the results we are getting in respect of the financing of various unemployment schemes with the results that could be obtained by the financing of joint selling organisations through the Department of Overseas Trade, the results from the latter would be infinitely the better. We should get an infinitely better result upon our unemployment figures, and, at the same time, we should be establishing upon a sound and a practical basis the overseas trade, which at the present moment is suffering so severely from the competition of countries, which have been wiser in that they have realised that not only manufacturing at home but selling abroad are equally important.

Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) has opened up a very fascinating discussion, and if I had not risen for one definite purpose I should like to have followed him but I will deal with two points he made. He spoke of the alarm felt about the position of this country not being fully justified because our exports had increased in volume since 1924, but I would point out that the exports of the world have risen very much in volume and our exports only a little. I should be out of order if I enlarged on the question of Protection, but, if he took the protected countries, Germany, the United States and France, he would have found that the volume of their imports had risen very considerably indeed. As to his second point, that our exports per head lead the world, it would be an astonishing fact if they did not, considering that we have sacrificed nearly the whole of our agriculture in order to get
exports and get our food from abroad. Other countries have an enormous market in their agricultural districts. If he would consult Dr. Snow's paper recently read at the Royal Statistical Society, he would find that the lecturer proved that, if we take the wages of the country, we find that only little over 13 per cent. enter into exports, showing how very much more important is the home trade even in our own country than the export trade.
I rose, however, for a definite purpose, which is not always appreciated on the other side of the House, of dealing with Russia. The hon. Member who introduced this Debate did it on the ground that he wished to discuss the reports that had been issued. I might almost say I wished to raise this question on the reports that have not been issued. The Government have pursued a hush-hush policy in regard to Russia. We get nothing from our trade commissioners in Russia, we get nothing from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in a long speech. Contrast that with the period before the election, when we were told that Russia was the cure for all our evils. We do not hear that now. If I go to the Board of Trade Journal for information, I get nothing whatever about Russia. If one goes back on the whole history of this question, the main genesis of our Russian trade policy came when the leader of the Liberal party was Prime Minister and induced us once more to trade with Russia. That policy was initiated with a speech, which is famous throughout the world as the "bursting corn-bins" speech. We were told of the bursting corn-bins of Russia and how we could clothe the Russians with cotton shirts and woollen garments in exchange. That was all a fairy tale. [Interruption.] There were no bursting corn-bins. There may be now, but that was 10 years ago.
Another point, which ought to be explained in the reports of the Government, is this: The Communist Government in Russia dictates the whole of the trade with Russia. All the organisations over here, like Arcos and Centrosujus, are provided with capital by the Government of Russia. The Government decree that nothing else shall go into Russia but machines except when they want cotton, and they will not be importing cotton next year. I doubt whether they will import it this year except from Egypt. The
whole object is to wage economic war on the rest of the world with the object of promoting world revolution. The same policy is still going on. We see the same fallacy about Russian trade in the speech of the Prime Minister just before he took office when, speaking at Leicester on 28th April, 1929, he said:
There was nothing that would have been better for this country than a continued diplomatic contact with Russia; our trade with Russia would have been very much larger, our unemployed would have been reduced by some thousands, and our prospects would have been brighter. By hook or by crook diplomatic relations should be established with Russia.
He made that speech—and it was probably the basis of that speech—23 days after the industrial delegation—one of those delegations so much lauded—had arrived in Moscow. It shows the value of Soviet promises that they were told that, if we resumed relations with them, we could get £150,000,000 of orders, with the option of extending it to £200,000,000, and, in addition, valuable concessions. The value of the concessions was shown by the Ogpu raid nine months later on the Lena Goldfields concession, for which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and others are now trying to get compensation. We are getting a mere bagatelle of orders compared with the £5,500,000 of Government credits and the many other private credits in addition. To show the trade treaty has not benefited us, compare the figures for the three months, October to December, 1929, before the trade treaty, when we received £4,700,000 in orders, with the period October to December, 1930, after the trade treaty, when we received £1,700,000 worth of orders—a fall of £3,000,000. Germany at the same time is getting orders five times as great, and America, which has not recognised Russia, is getting far more extensive orders. In fact, we got the highest figures for orders from Russia prior to the trade agreement, showing that her object was to get the agreement.
They have been violating other agreements since then. There is the agreement with the Central Softwood Buying Corporation for timber. I do not know whether the hon. Member is taking any action upon it, but they agreed to sell 600,000 standards of timber in this country, and not to sell any more, and
to sell them to the Central Softwood Buying Corporation. They straightaway tried to get out of it by selling timber to Germany, Holland and Latvia, and from those countries it is sent over to us. It is the same with the pledge that has been given to the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. I am glad it has been broken, because it is a most immoral bargain for Lancashire to try to keep cotton out of the British Empire with the result that many other articles are imported into this country to the ruin of smaller traders. It seems to be the settled policy of the Soviet Government not to touch at present those trades that have great political influence like the cotton trade and the coal trade. They will ruin agriculture, which has always been the Cinderella, the fruit industry, the soap industry, the matches industry, and so on, but at present they do not touch those trades with the greatest political influence. I omitted to say how they have broken the agreement with Lancashire. They sent cotton goods on to other countries, which sent them on to India, as the Secretary of State for India knows. At the present moment there are two ships laden with cargoes of cotton going direct to India from Russia.
Now what do we get out of it? Allowing for the re-export of Russian produce from Germany, Holland and Latvia, a Russian expert in the "Statist "—and very important articles they are—has shown that 30 per cent. of the exports of Russia come to this country—not to the British Empire, but to this country alone—although the Board of Trade figures show only 23.6 per cent., because the exports that go through Germany, Holland and Latvia are credited to those countries. He shows that 76 per cent. of Russian barley finds a market here, that 33½ to 39½ per cent. of other cereals find their market in this country, that 80i per cent. of the Russian butter which is exported finds its market here, together with 55 per cent. of her sawn timber and 44½ per cent. of her tinned goods, Surely with those great imports coming here we ought to be able to make a better bargain than we do at the present moment, no doubt because Soviet Russia has declared over and over again that she has no money to pay for her
machines except the money she makes out of her exports. We could drive a better bargain, although I am hotly opposed to the whole trade, and would like to see every other country agree to boycott Russian trade till they give up their political policy of world revolution.
In addition to the official recognition of Russia, we have done other things. According to the official Russian figures for 1929, 60 per cent. of the credits Russia gets are British, 10 per cent. are German, and 30 per cent. come from the rest of the world. All I can say is that the net results of all this killing Russia by kindness are simply ludicrous. The President of the Board of Trade, replying on Russia recently, said:
Nothing is to be achieved by excluding goods.
What is the good then of all these efforts of the League of Nations with regard to the exclusion of sweated goods 2 We have been waiting for the result of these efforts, but the President of the Board of Trade says nothing is to be gained by this policy. In the "Sunday Times" on 16th December, 1928, he made an interesting announcement in an article headed "Party's General Policy" when he wrote:
The great majority of its members will continue to believe that Free Trade is, as regards the aggregate volume of commerce, substantially in the national interest but "—

The CHAIRMAN: I must warn the hon. and gallant Member that he must not discuss Free Trade and Protection on this Vote.

Commander BELLAIRS: I am only quoting a policy for the exclusion of imports produced under certain conditions. If I may finish the quotation, you will see my point.

Mr. BROCKWAY: On a point of Order. Is it possible to pursue the policy of excluding imports without legislation, and is the hon. Member therefore in order?

The CHAIRMAN: I am warning the hon. Member that he must deal with the general policy of trade with Russia, and not with exclusion of imports.

Commander BELLAIRS: I understand that. If it is the declared policy to keep out sweated goods, we want information from Russia as to whether we have not
got sweated goods from there, or something worse than sweated goods. It is up to the hon. Member's Department to tell us in their reports whether the conditions of labour in that country call for such a policy. Stalin has said in regard to the industrial crisis which is occurring throughout the world:
The industrial crisis will intensify the agricultural, and the agricultural crisis will protract the industrial, which cannot but lead to the deepening of the economic crisis as a whole.
I invite the Minister to issue a Blue Book telling us about the policy of the Government with which we are trading, and how they are intensifying both the industrial and agricultural crisis in pursuance of what I cannot but regard otherwise than as an economic war to bring about revolution.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) devoted the whole of his speech to Russia, but as far as I can gather the only constructive suggestion he made was that our trade with that country, and (indeed with the rest of the world, would be helped if we were to take the course of ostracising Russia altogether. That is a very simple plan, and I should like to know whether he was speaking for his party? Are we to understand that that is now the official policy of the Opposition and that when they are in office they will cancel the commercial agreement which was entered into with Russia after the last General Election? I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member into the question of trade with Russia, although what I have to say relates to Russia. It is natural that in a discussion of this nature large questions of policy and large industries should be the subject of debate. I am going to deal with a small industry, the herring fishing industry of Scotland. It may be a smaller industry but it is more of an exporting industry than any of the larger industries which have been mentioned. It will probably be news to many hon. Members that even if the large consumption of herrings in this country was entirely stopped it would make no appreciable difference to the industry as a whole, so large is the herring fishing industry a question of export.
It is an industry which has suffered very much from the War and since the War. After the War it looked forward to a resumption of trading relations with Russia in the hope that it would bring back a great deal of the prosperity it had lost. It has not been entirely disappointed; and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone will take a note of it. In the first year after the last General Election Russia bought herrings very substantially from this country and it made all the difference between the prosperity and failure of the herring fishing industry in that year. But during last year the hopes which had been entertained were not realised and the position at the present moment is very difficult indeed. It has been said that if British industries would only reorganise themselves and go in for cooperative marketing and selling they would get over a great deal of their troubles. This particular industry has reorganised itself in a way it has never been organised before. It has also set up a selling agency, which has done some good; but it has not enabled the industry to overcome its difficulties. It set up this selling agency and reorganised itself particularly with the Russian market in view.
Before the War Russia was one of its great customers, probably half of its produce was taken by Russia, and if Russia is not going to continue to be one of its great customers in the future the industry will have to be cut down and a great amount of work will thus be lost. The industry is quite prepared to adjust itself to changed conditions, but it wants to know whether the conditions have really changed or not. The very worst possible position for this or any other industry is a position of doubt and uncertainty. Members of the industry have made many applications to the Russian trade representatives in this country with a view of seeing whether more trade could be done between this country and Russia. The hon. Member in charge of the Overseas Department has done a great deal for the industry in that direction and they are much obliged to him for what he has done. Many delegations have gone to the Russian representatives. It has been suggested over and over again that the Russian Government will be quite prepared to deal with the industry
as a whole, and to some extent it was because of that suggestion that the industry set up a selling agency.
It was suggested by the Russian representatives that they might be able to buy in bulk. The industry has not been accustomed to deal in that way, but at the suggestion, largely of the Russian representatives, it has organised itself and put itself in a position to be able to deal with the Russian Government as an industry. The result so far has been disappointing, and the representatives of the industry are in some difficulty. It is felt that if they go to the Russian Government or to the trade delegation in this country and appear to be in a helpless condition they may not be able to do themselves any good. They are afraid that they may give the Russian Government the appearance of being at their mercy and that the Russian Government would be able to get what they want at any price they might wish to pay. If we can believe the Press reports Russia has been dealing in the last few years in large quantities of Norwegian herrings. An hon. Member opposite has emphasised the need of selling agencies, and he seemed to think that such a cooperative agency would do all that is required. In this industry you have cooperative effort, and a selling agency, but it has failed to do what he says it is capable of doing; and it has failed in this case because the Scottish herring fishing industry, and the English herring fishing industry, is at a disadvantage.
If the Russians, or any other people who consume herrings, were given a free choice of the herrings they want, that is to say, if they were allowed to buy Scottish or Norwegian herrings, there is no doubt whatever what they would buy. No one who knows the different types of herrings would ever dream of buying Norwegian herrings, although they are a great deal cheaper, because they are coarse and bad. But, unfortunately, the people who are responsible for ordering herrings are the people at Moscow, and they are not the people who eat them. They buy the bad cheap article, and foist it on their people at home. The representatives of the herring fishing industry in this country have done all that they have been asked
to do in the way of reorganising their industry in order to be in a position to deal with the Russian market. They have sent deputations to the Russian representatives in this country, who have made suggestions of various kinds.
It has now come to a position when they must ask, and I think they are entitled to ask, the Overseas Trade Department to take this matter up for them and get an authoritative answer as to what may be expected in the future. It has been stated that Russia has suggested the possibility of buying large quantities of herrings in advance. If that could be done it would make a great difference to this industry. We are just beginning a new season, and the prospect as to the Russian market will have the greatest effect in determining the success or otherwise of the season. It will be of the greatest advantage to the industry as a whole if the hon. Member could get into touch with the "Russian Trade Delegation and get from them a definite indication as to what their intentions are in the future. If the industry can know definitely the prospects of the Russian market, it would make a great deal of difference; but otherwise they will be left in a state of great uncertainty which will cause, a great deal of harm to them and to the country at large.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I do not intend—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

YORKSHIRE (WOOLLEN DISTRICT) TRANSPORT BILL [Lords].

(By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. BEN TURNER: I should like to make a few observations on this Bill and to say, quite frankly, that, on principle, I do not agree with it. I do not like to give way on a principle of any import-
ance of this character. I happen, however, to be the only Member representing our own town in this House, and I am authorised by the corporation of that borough to give the Bill my support. There are at present six authorities in this area who own or semi-own the present tramway system. Formerly, there were 11 bodies. It is one of those strange, incongruous things that certain of the places do not own the tramlines, but the tramways. Others own nothing except a short stretch of land. In other places they own nothing whatever.
The time has gone for trams and they must now go by the board. The suggestion is that the tramways should be abandoned and that there should be established an omnibus system covering the whole area. It has been asked why do not the authorities agree to run the new service themselves. I am the only person in this House who was a member of one of the public bodies who went through this stage 30 years ago, when we tried our best to get the then authorities to agree to take up the tramway services under a joint authority. We failed to get agreement then, and there is no possibility at the present time of an agreement being arrived at for joint action in this direction. There has been general agreement by six authorities as to the position of affairs at this moment, and each of them has signed what is termed an agreement, which is a schedule of the Bill itself, which arranges not only for the establishment of omnibuses but for the pulling up of the old tramways and for the sharing of profits as well. All these six authorities are for the Bill. In regard to one town, opposition has been raised by a considerable number of ratepayers. In the six areas referred to there are four trades councils. One of the trades councils has opposed the Bill, but three have not opposed it at all. The same applies, I think we may say, to the ratepayers as a whole. The opposition to the Bill from one body of ratepayers is very honest in principle, and one which I would support most heartily if the circumstances were favourable and suitable, but towns like my own cannot afford at the present moment to go deeply into expenditure, because our rates are so high, our resources are so low and our trade is so bad.
This is a Bill that I think ought to be amended in Committee. I am not quite certain whether I am in order or not, but I hope that I am. I do not like all the parts of the agreement that are contained in the Schedule of the Bill. The first part contains a lease for 99 years, with the right of the local authorities to make a bargain at the end of 25 years or at the end of 50 years, and it seems to me that a prospective 50 years in 99 years is altogether inadequate. As to the question of sharing profits, which has been arranged by the various authorities, I have no grumble. The 60 per cent. of net profits seems to me quite a proper arrangement, although it drops down to 55 per cent. in certain periods. There are four things missing from the Bill. I do not know whether it is feasible for the Committee upstairs to insist that local labour shall be applied in pulling up the tramway track. There is no provision for the human element in connection with the pulling up of the tramway track or in the establishment of omnibuses. I think it ought to be said that they should employ the displaced tramway men upon the omnibuses.

Mr. PALIN: There is an undertaking to that effect.

Mr. TURNER: But it is not in the Bill. I know that some undertakings have been given. They were given last Monday downstairs. I am not opposing the official agreements that were come to, but I want to see them in black and white in the Bill. Moreover, we ought to have British omnibuses and none of those foreign contraptions that may sometimes be called for because of economy. That has nothing to do with tariffs, you know. Clauses 6, 16 and 22 need careful consideration and revision, and if these things are done the Bill will be more acceptable. I conclude by saying that I regret that these authorities could not agree to have this system under their own control, to create and manage it themselves, as we tried to do 30 years ago, and failed. It has been tried again and yet it has failed. Therefore, I am compelled, for the sake of expediency, to support the Bill.

Mr. KELLY: I should like to raise a point in regard to the men who are now employed. I do so because I have had experience of accepting from those who
are undertaking new methods or forming new companies promises that they would give compensation or work to those who happen to be displaced. I refer to the Chatham undertaking particularly in which, owing to the position at which we found ourselves at a particular stage, we accepted an undertaking that compensation would be paid. There has been some difficulty about that because of its not being in the Bill. I hope that during the passage of this Measure through its stages there will be put into it a provision that if the company do not find work and an equal position for the men who are displaced, that they will compensate them for the whole of the service that they have given to the companies by whom they happen to be engaged at this particular time. I press that very strongly, and if it is not done I hope to have an opportunity of opposing the Bill and, if possible, preventing it becoming law.

Mr. PALIN: The House would make itself ridiculous to go on discussing details of a Bill of this character. So far as the local authorities are concerned in regard to the position that we are in there is no one to blame but themselves. They only own a very small portion of the track within the old area.

Mr. TURNER: Batley owns all its tramways.

Mr. PALIN: As a matter of fact they do not. This tramway is a very long one and the local authorities only own a very small part. As the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Turner) has challenged it, there is in the Borough of Batley only 6.27 miles of tramway of this particular system. The corporation do not own all the tramway in Batley, because the company own a small portion within the borough. In Birkenshaw, the urban district council own only 22 yards of the tramway, the remainder being owned by the company. In Birstal the same thing applies. In Dewsbury, the corporation own 48 miles of tramway, which is leased to the company until the 10th April, 1933. The corporation also own 2.46 miles of light railway leased to the company, and the company own 3,08 miles of light railway inside the borough.
It is very difficult to present a Bill and to do all the things that the hon.
Member for Batley and Morley desires. He wants to have a little bit on the company and a little on the local authorities. So far as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is concerned, the men employed by this undertaking are thoroughly well organised, and their organisation is quite capable of looking after their conditions of service. Up to now the relations of the company with the workpeople have been most harmonious, and there is no ground for complaint or fear that the company would not honour their word if they gave an undertaking to see that any men displaced by the abandonment of the tramways are either amply compensated or found other employment. Therefore, there seems to be ample reason why this Bill should be committed to a Committee for full consideration, where any points that require amendment will no doubt be considered, with the assistance of that expert advice that we get from the Ministry of Transport and the learned counsel engaged in connection with the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £280,507, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grants in Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel Association of Great Britain.

Question again proposed.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I only want to make a passing reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) which was followed by a speech from the Liberal Benches. The speech delivered from the Liberal Benches was a complete reply to the speech from the Conservative Benches. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone urged that the Department of Overseas Trade so far from encouraging trade with Russia should dis-
courage it. He even said that he would welcome a stoppage of all trade with Russia. The hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood), who followed, pointed out that the herring industry of his constituency requires the utmost encouragement in its trade with Russia. What the hon. Member for Banff said about the herring industry is true probably of other industries.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. BROCKWAY: I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member for Banff is now in his place. I had been pointing out that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member was a complete reply to the speech from the Conservative Benches. What the hon. and gallant Member said about the herring trade requiring encouragement in its trade with Russia is equally true with regard to machine tools, the boiler making industry, electric equipment in Russia and many other things. In these respects we ought to be asking the Department of Overseas Trade to encourage our trade with Russia rather than to accept the advice of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone and to discourage it.
I rose mainly to add a dissentient minute to the speeches which have been delivered from all parts of the Committee. I recognise that there are very great opportunities for the export trade of this country. I agree entirely with the statement made by the Minister that the millions of the East, of China and of India, and of Africa, if their standard of living were raised, could make very large demands upon the trade of this country. I recognise also that it is desirable that the peoples of other parts of the world should have a knowledge of the goods which we could send to them, and that our manufacturers should have a knowledge of the needs of other parts of the world. I recognise fully the necessity for encouraging the reorganisation of our industry, particularly so far as selling is concerned. But when recognition has been given to all those facts I would like to sound the warning that, behind the whole of this Debate there has been a philosophy that is of very great danger to the future of the world.
That philosophy is the philosophy of competitive capitalism. It has been the philosophy of our country seeking to obtain trade here or there, but the obtaining of that trade must be at the expense of some other country which is also seeking that trade.
The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone referred to Russia waging economic war. Under the present conditions of international trade every country is waging economic war. The whole Debate to-day has been to urge upon the Government greater efficiency in that economic war in the world. This situation is the more dangerous to-day because in every country, owing to the under-consumption by its own people, there is a surplus of goods, and that surplus is being dumped from one country to another. I suggest that it is the duty of a Socialist administration not so much to assist this policy of competitive capitalism, of encouraging our country against other countries to secure a larger slice of the international trade of the world, as it is to encourage international agreements, international co-ordination and international cooperation in the distribution of the trade of the world.
I may be told that I am an idealist in urging that course. My reply is that the condition of international trade to-day is compelling international agreements and compelling international cooperation. I urge upon the Overseas Trade Department that instead of concentrating upon sending a commission here and a commission there to grab a little more of the world's trade, it should concentrate upon the task of seeking to obtain international agreements for the distribution of the world's trade in a juster way to the peoples of the world. So far as the mining industry is concerned, some preliminary steps have been taken in that direction, and it is recognised that further steps must be taken. In steel, cotton, wheat, indeed in almost every trade, that is the great essential at this moment. In Europe steps are already being taken in arrangements for international trade with these conceptions. There is a great opportunity for a Socialist Government, if it will understand what is happening to international trade, to give a lead in a Socialist direction for international co-operation, to begin to turn the mind of the world away
from this policy of competition between nations, which may begin with an economic war but which, unless modified and controlled, is likely to lead to a war of armaments. It was to sound that note that I entered the Debate. I hope that the Government will begin to turn its mind in that direction and fulfil the Socialist policy for the furtherance of which the Government was returned.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: Although I am not a Socialist I find myself in complete agreement with the last speaker in emphasising the enormous importance of international agreements, but at the same time I think the hon. Member is bound to recognise that the Government, whether it be Socialist or capitalist, is bound to pay some attention to the world in which we live, and in the world in which we live the Overseas Trade Department obviously has a task to perform on behalf of the nation in competing for the trade of the world. In the midst of so much criticism that has been justly levelled against the efforts of the present Government to deal with unemployment, we are discussing to-day the affairs of a Department which, I think, deserves a very great deal of praise. I am interested in a particular trade, the iron and steel trade, which is suffering from enormous difficulties, but whatever Department they may seek to lay their burdens on, I believe that those connected with that trade would say that from the Overseas Trade Department they have always received the only thing that that Department could give them, and that is information of the most up-to-date kind that they want.
On the whole the contribution of this Department to the unemployment problem, although it is necessarily limited, is a very notable one. We have heard about various missions that have been sent out. Some of them have reported publicly, and some of them have not, because they have been partly private inquiries. I think that the Minister was, perhaps, less than just to the Scottish Woollen Delegation when he said that its cost to the country was very little, because I am informed that it cost nothing whatever, and that the delegation was the only one which paid out of its own funds the whole cost of its work. I am rather surprised to find that any Scottish delegation could have missed the
opportunity of getting something out of the public purse. But still that happened, and I hope that other industries will be equally eager to find out the latest facts for their own interests and that whatever may have been lost by the Scottish Woollen Delegation from the public purse, may be made up subsequently out of the American purse, because I gather that it was in that direction that they were making inquiries.
From the Conservative Benches there were two observations to which I wish to reply. One was from the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking), who pointed out, and very justly, that whatever might be done in the way of finding opportunities for our trade, the question of prices very largely ruled the situation, that if one could not get the appropriate prices any kind of inquiry or information would fail to obtain trade for us. I would agree with that, and without trespassing on any of the subjects which have been ruled out of order I would point out that our export trades, with all the disadvantages which have come upon them, at least have one advantage left—that they can still get their machinery and still buy their raw materials in the first and best market that they can find, and can do so without restriction. I hope that that liberty will not be altered, because the one thing which would alter the export market more than anything else to our disadvantage, and would lose us the one advantage that we still have over foreign nations, would be the placing of any obstacle in the way of our manufacturing industries getting their machinery and their materials in the cheapest and readiest market.
The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) went off to the question of Russia—there is a certain tendency on the Conservative Benches whenever anything is brought forward to divert it at once to Russia—and suggested that although a certain amount of protection had been given to other trades, agriculture was defenceless in this House. I was surprised at any such suggestion. After all, Conservative Members to a very large extent represent agricultural constituencies, and, whatever may be said of this House, there is another place in which agriculture is represented, unless indeed it is suggested that the landlords who are represented in
another place do not represent the agricultural interests. If that is put forward I shall heartily agree with it. But to suggest that the landed interest is defenceless in a House which represents all the other industries, is an absolutely farcial suggestion to make to anyone who has been only a few years in the House. I hope that the Committee will not be led away too much in this Debate to the side road of Russia.
To-day we are discussing the affairs of a Department which, on the whole, has contributed very largely in these difficult times to the success of our trade. We have heard about at least six different missions which have been sent abroad and have contributed to the success of our export trade. I notice that several of them have reported. The Minister appeared to quote the Egyptian report as if it had been already published. I do not know whether that is the case. I have not seen the report, and if it-is not published I should be glad to know when it is likely to be published, because it deals with a subject of great interest to many. With regard to the other missions, of course the first category of these reports—the Kirkley report, the Thompson report and the Balfour report—deal with matters that the Government themselves have taken in hand. But there are also the Sheffield report and several others, including the Scottish Woollen report, which have been undertaken on the responsibility of the industries themselves.
8.0 p.m.
Of course, everyone realises, with regard to the second category of these reports, that the Government do not undertake a direct responsibility, and that in the main everything depends upon the industries themselves. I would like to know whether the Minister has any information as to any action which is being taken upon that latter class of report which depends upon the industries themselves, With regard to iron and steel, I know that those in the industry are extremely grateful to the Department for the accurate and ready information which has at all times been supplied to that industry. I shall be glad to know if there is in the contemplation of the Department any more far-reaching inquiry, either by itself or in conjunction with the industry, as to the opportunities
before the iron and steel trade. This is an industry which, through no fault of its own, is most depressed. It is an industry which has been free from industrial trouble for longer, I believe, than any other in this country. It has consented to every condition which would enable it to progress and it is very largely dependent upon the export trade. Therefore any information which the hon. Gentleman can give as to the prospects which that industry may have through Ids Department would be gladly received. I conclude by again congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the valuable support which his Department has given not only to the trade which I have mentioned but in regard to the industrial situation generally.

Mr. STRAUSS: I hope the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument. He referred to certain statements made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) about Russia. As he suggested, when any subject whatsoever comes up in this House there is a tendency on the part of some hon. Members to divert the discussion to Russia. On this occasion, two statements were made which appear to me so misleading as to call for an answer. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone said that the trade agreement which this Government arrived at with Russia, had been of no benefit to this country, and he conveyed the impression that trade with Russia had actually declined as a result of that agreement. Of course that is not the case. The figures are these. In 1927 our exports to Russia were £11,250,000; in 1928, when the effects of the Arcos raid had been seen, the figure was £4,800,000, but in 1929 it had risen to £6,500,000 and, in 1930, to £9,346,000. There has been a steady increase, and not a decrease as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
Then the hon. Member for Colchester put a point which is so often repeated from the benches opposite that an early answer to it is desirable. He said that our trade balance with Russia was "bad" for England. He said that Russia's exports to us were very much more than our exports to Russia and that something ought to be done about it because
England was suffering as a result. That is surely a strange statement. Canada, during the last 10 years, has sent to England almost twice as much as we have sent to Canada, but no one suggests that we should make some reciprocal trade bargain with Canada; it would be quite impracticable to do so. The United States, during the last 10 years, have sent to England more than three and a-half times the value of the commodities which we have sent to the United States, and I have never heard the suggestion that we should protest to the United States about it, and seek to restrict her imports here, or to come to some reciprocal arrangement.
The situation as I see it in regard to our trade with Russia is this. Through forces beyond our control—discontent in India, civil war in China, tariffs in other countries—we are having the greatest difficulty in maintaining our markets and are in serious danger of losing some of them. Russia is the one country where a new market is being presented to the world. With its population four times that of the United Kingdom, there is growing up rapidly in Russia a big demand for goods. For the first time Russia is becoming a great consuming market. Who is to get the advantage of that market? I do not suggest that we should enter into economic warfare with other countries, but I do suggest that we should co-operate with Russia, as much as other countries do, and get our fair share of the trade that is going.
America is ahead of us in that respect. She exported to Russia last year £23,000,000 worth of goods or more than double what we exported to Russia. Italy has recently entered into an agreement with Russia, not on a very large scale it is true, but it may grow. Germany has recently made a very important agreement with Russia under which, I understand, Russia undertakes to buy before August at least £15,000,000 worth of goods in addition to the orders which are now running, and the total will probably reach £25,000,000. According to our usual methods of reckoning these things, this means work for 100,000 men for a year. All I suggest is that we ought to make every possible effort to get our share of that trade. We
are as well equipped as any other country, and we are Russia's natural complement, in regard to trade development. The matter of Export Credits may not be discussed on this Vote, but I submit that every possible opportunity ought to be taken to encourage trade between this country and Russia. I firmly believe that on the extent to which Anglo-Russian trade can be fostered, will depend the fate of a very large; section of British industry.

Mr. PRICE: It seems to me that our trade relations with Russia are tending to bring about a development which is all to the good in connection with our foreign trade generally. The fact that our traders have to deal with a single united Government organisation is forcing them to concentrate and to bring about a more rational method of commercial dealing than that which formerly existed. I need only mention the case which was quoted—quoted adversely it is true—by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). He referred to the Central Softwood Buying Corporation, a body formed over here for the purpose of handling the whole Russian output of timber. The hon. and gallant Member referred to that case as an example of how Russian trading organisations broke away from their agreements and he suggested that Russia was now exporting timber via the Baltic States into this country, thereby breaking their contract with this corporation. Of course it is the fact that Russia always exports a certain amount of timber to the Baltic States and Finland, but to suggest that that export can be anything appreciable or of such kind as to break down or seriously impair the agreement between the Russian Government and this corporation is fantastic.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) gave figures concerning the trade balance between this country and Russia for 1930 and according to those figures, he made out that there was an adverse balance on that year's trading of £28,000,000. I have not the figures for 1930 but having regard to the figures of the previous years I have grave doubts as to the accuracy of those quoted by the hon. Member. I have the figures from 1920 to 1929 and taking the aggre-
gate in those years I find that the imports into this country from Russia came to £192,000,000 sterling, while the exports to Russia came to £103,000,000 sterling. There are however re-exports which are a very important factor in the trade balance—that is to say, goods imported from Russia which merely pass through this country to other countries. These amounted to £31,000,000 during those years. In addition, it has been estimated that invisible exports—credits, insurance, banking and freights—came to £36,000,000 during the same period bringing the total on the credit side of this country up to £170,000,000 which represents an adverse balance over a period of 10 years of £22,000,000, or in other words, an adverse balance of about £2,000,000 a year—a very different story from that indicated by the figures which the hon. Member gave us for last year. I can hardly believe that the very small adverse balance which appears over the last 10 years should suddenly have grown to £28,000,000 but, if there is even a small adverse balance in our trade with Russia, that is surely an argument for pushing forward with the various recommendations which many of us believe ought to be carried out, but which we cannot discuss on this occasion, in regard to export credits. The fact that other countries, particularly Germany and the United States, have been very active in pushing their export trade by these methods seems to point the right direction for us.
In reference to the general export trade of this country, the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) quoted figures which tended to show that this country has no reason to be despondent in regard to the position. We ought to approach this problem first from the international and then from the nation point of view. If we regard it internationally, I think it will be seen that the position is nothing like so serious as might appear at first sight. The fact is that the export trades of all countries have gone down seriously in the last year. The latest figures which I have seen covering from the end of the War up to 1929 show that there was a steady rise during that period in the export trades of all countries—United States, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The only later figures
which I have seen for all those countries together, deal with the periods of the first six months of 1930, compared with the first six months of 1929, and if we look at that comparison we find that there has been a big decrease in the export trade not only of this country but of Germany, France, Italy and the United States. There you have three highly industrialised countries and one which is less highly industrialised. There has been a decrease in the first six months of 1930 compared with the first six months of 1929 in this country of £60,000,000; in Germany of £26,000,000; in France of £18,000,000; in Italy of £20,000,000, and in the United States of £110,000,000. That would go to show that there is a general world fall in trade due to causes which we cannot here discuss in detail. It is interesting to note that a report issued by a prominent firm of bankers in the City the other day stated:
The practical suspension of loans abroad, the insistence on the maintenance of the status quo regarding War debts, the raising of tariff barriers have undoubtedly played a great part in the falling-off of America's export trade. More important than all, on account of its psychological effect, has been the continued decline in commodity prices.
I suggest that the fall in commodity prices is a very important factor in the general fall in the export trade of the world from which this country is suffering along with others. This collapse in commodity prices began in the autumn of 1929, and was due to a number of causes, partly to over-production, partly to mal-distribution of gold, partly to tariff barriers, and partly also to war debts, all of which, I think, are matters which can only be dealt with by international action. This country is in a position to play a leading role in that respect, because conditions in many other countries are far worse than they are here.
There is another factor at work in regard to our export trade, which I think is less satisfactory and more unfavourable to this country. I have been saying that the fall in the export trade from 1929 onwards shows that this country is not suffering more than other countries, but if we look at a longer period, from the beginning of the War until the big slump of the autumn of 1929, we see that this country has lost ground in relation to other countries, although we are suffering now in the international slump not
worse than those other countries. At a time when the rest of the world was doing relatively well, we were not doing as well as we should have been doing. If we take the share of this country in the export trade of the world, and measure it in quantities rather than in values, we find that our share has gone down, if we take the year 1930, with 100 as the mean, to 84; France has gone up from 100 to 148; Italy has risen to 132; and Germany has gone down, much in the same way as we have, from 100 to 85.7.
This cannot be due to currency questions, maldistribution of gold, War debts, and so forth, because all these other countries, whose share of the export trade has gone up, have suffered in the same way from these causes. The reason must be found in the industrial structure of this country, and it has been made plain already in speeches to-day that we have not kept pace, either in our industrial organisation or in our commercial organisation, with other countries. There was a communication in the "Times" to-day from their Calcutta correspondent, in which it is pointed out that it was not merely a question of the boycott of Lancashire cotton goods that is said to be going on in India, but that the really important question there was that Lancashire cotton goods are too dear. True, there is an agitation against all foreign cloth in India, but the real difficulty is that this country is being undersold. I know that arguments are used to the effect that it is due to trade union action or lack of action, trade union rules, high wages, and so on.
I do not wish to introduce a controversial note, but I feel that it is time that the leaders and captains of industry in this country put their own house in order, with a view to seeing what elimination of waste and inefficiency can be carried through, in order to make this country's exports capable of competing on equal terms with those of the rest of the world. Particularly in a country like this, which is the most important banking and commercial centre, where we get a great advantage in our invisible trade through our Free Trade system, it is all-important that that part of our trade balance which is concerned with the exporting industry should be up to the very highest level. We have,
unfortunately, only too much reason to believe that in our great staple trades, in the cotton industry, and particularly in iron and steel, we are far behind the times. I can remember, years ago before the War, when I was out in Russia, in the Eastern part of that country, meeting leaders of Russian commerce and hearing from them the same story that we hear now, the same sort of thing that we hear from every trade delegation that goes out, whether to South America or to the Far East, namely, that British goods are excellent and high priced, but that we do not take the necessary care to please the market as we should, and that we do not run after the buyers in the way that other countries do. I remember very well on that occasion, in 1911, some 20 years ago, finding that the Germans had their trade representatives all over Russia, and that at that time they were getting trade a large proportion of which this country should have had, and could have now.
The same story is going on to-day. It did not matter in those days, because our position was relatively strong. We were going ahead year after year, our foreign investments were increasing, we had no war debts payable to America, and competition was not so severe in our export trade. But now things are very different. We have now to face the after-war situation, and we cannot afford to lose even in one little direction what we formerly were able to sniff at and throw away. Therefore, I feel that if this Debate has done anything at all, it will do something to raise the feeling that we cannot allow this to go on indefinitely. We cannot carry on in the old way that we did before the War. I think the Department of Overseas Trade is to be congratulated on the efforts which it has made in the last 12 months by pushing forward exhibitions of British trade and industry, both in this country and abroad, and we hope that those efforts will lead to the ultimate advantage of the trade and industry of this country.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I should like to associate myself with the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banff (Major McKenzie Wood) in connection with the herring fishing industry. That industry holds a special
position in regard to our export trade. It is largely dependent on that trade, and it is an industry which supports a large number of small fishing communities round the shores of Scotland. It has had in past years a very considerable measure of prosperity, but since the War and the closing in recent years of the Russian market, the industry has been exceedingly hard hit. My hon. and gallant Friend made reference especially to the efforts which have been made to reopen this market, and I hope we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman who represents the Department of Overseas Trade some reply to the observations which have been made on this subject. We feel that there is still scope for action by the Department to facilitate export trade with Russia being renewed on something like the old lines, and steps require to be taken immediately if any advantage is to be reaped. I wish to stress the uncertainty that the present situation is creating, and the great anxiety and loss to all concerned. They ought to know what the position is quite clearly at the beginning of the season so that they may make their arrangements. I believe that we have by no means exhausted the efforts that we have made to secure a considerably larger share of the trade with Russia and to bring it back to something like the old proportions.
Another point which I should like to mention in connection with this industry is that we have reason to believe there are other markets available in other parts of Europe and the world. If the difficulty with which we are faced in Russia continues, it will be essential that some effort should be made to secure openings in other directions. Efforts have been made to ascertain what can be done in southern Europe, Asia and Africa to secure the development of trade in pickled herring or other forms of cure which might be adopted. The Fishery Board for Scotland sent out a questionnaire some years ago through the medium of the hon. Gentleman's Department, and I should like to know whether steps have been taken within recent years to ascertain again what possible openings there are in these particular countries. At that time international exchanges and high
transport charges made it difficult to take advantage of the opportunities that had been indicated, but I suggest that if a further comprehensive inquiry were instituted to-day, it might reveal a number of important markets which would be available to our fishermen, and to which they could send their cured herring. At the same time, efforts should be made to ascertain other forms of cure which would be more acceptable to the needs of other communities with which we might be able to open up our trade. I hope that we may get from the hon. Gentleman some indication that this industry is being especially considered by the Government in relation to overseas trade. There is no doubt that it is more directly affected than almost any other industry, and it is one that would benefit largely by some action which the Government might take in the direction which I have indicated. Those concerned have made their effort, and it is for the Government to support them.

Mr. MATTERS: While it is true that the problem of our overseas trade was never more acute in our history than it is at this moment, I would like to give it as my opinion, based upon some direct association with the Overseas Trade Department, that never have a Government of this country done more than the present Government to bring that problem to a satisfactory solution. The problem is by no means new. It goes back centuries, and it was one of the first undertakings of King Charles II in the first year of his reign to appoint a council of trade. I have a copy of its ancient charter, and I will read some sections of it to indicate that the problems then were precisely what they are to-day. The Charter of Instructions says:
You shall take into your consideration ye inconveniences which the English Trade hath suffered in any Partes beyond the Seas. And are to inquire into such Articles of former Treaties as have been made with any Princes or States in relacion to Trade. And to draw out such observacions or Resolucions from thence, as may be necessary for us to advise or insist upon in any forreigne Leagues or Allyances. That such evills as have befallen those our Kingdomes through ye want of good informacion in those great and publique concernements may be provided against in time to come…You are to consider of the severall Manufactures of these our Kingdomes how and by what occasions they are corrupted, debased and disparaged. And by what
probable meanes they may be restored and maintained in their auncyent goodnesse and reputacion. And how they may be farther improved to their utmost advantage by a just Regulacion and Standard of Weight Length and Breadth, that so the private profitt of the Tradesmen or Marchants may not destroy ye Creditt of the Commodity and thereby render it neglected and un-vended abroad, to ye great loss and scandall of these our Kingdomes.
The date of that charter is 1660. I imagine that the council of trade so created by Charles II was actually the forerunner of the existing Board of Trade, and it would seem that the problem which was then tackled was relatively well solved, for we know that our foreign trade throughout the next two centuries flourished indeed. We were, in fact, in a dominant position right up to the beginning of the present century, and, when I read the remarks of economists and hear speeches in this House stating that we have lost our competitive power, I am bound to disagree. There was no competition with this country anterior to 30 or 40 years ago. It may be true that there was some degree of rivalry from the new industrial and exporting nations, but the problem before this country up to the beginning of the present century was not one of finding and holding markets, but of expanding production in order to cope with the demand from those markets which we alone dominated. This Department is a creation to deal with what is exclusively a post-war problem. It is interesting, when we bear comments and some implied criticism of the Department, to sec the vacant benches opposite, and to recall that the party above the Gangway opposite proposed to abolish the Department. That is the party of the supposedly shrewd-headed business men always mindful of our overseas trade position, who, had it not been for several trade organisations in the country and few intelligent manufacturers, would have put this Department into the category of the calamities for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has such an unenviable reputation.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) spoke of an interesting episode within his knowledge in connection with the sale of spades in Peru. I know South America intimately, and I was
interested in that story. I could tell another story. It reflects no credit upon the supposed eagerness of British manufacturers for guidance in foreign trade. The incident relates to a man in Buenos Aires. For 25 years he has given valuable service to British trade. Eighteen months ago he was asked by two Argentine motor-truck drivers if he could help them in understanding two very excellent British trucks which had been sent out. They produced for his inspection a handbook of driver's instructions printed in English. When they complained that these two very excellent trucks were what I may call, in a translation of their picturesque language, "English muck," he wrote to the truck manufacturing concern in the United Kingdom asking why they did not print their catalogues and instruction books in Spanish. His reward for that was that he got the sack—after 25 years service. He was told that he was impudent, impertinent, and interfering with what was not his concern.
The principal function of the Department into which my hon. Friend has imported his own energy, enterprise and enthusiasm has been to endeavour to make good the lamentable lack of commercial information on the part of British manufacturers. Were British industrialists and manufacturers imbued with that degree of enterprise and acumen which they so glibly claim for themselves, it surely would not have been necessary for this nation to send out commercial missions. I am not aware that the United States has ever sent one economic mission abroad under the auspices of the State itself. On the other hand, American manufacturers and industrialists, have on their own initiative, and at their own expense, made investigations such as those for which the Department of Overseas Trade in this country has made itself responsible.
Anybody who will investigate the reports of those several economic missions and make himself acquainted with the great obstacles that have had to be overcome before those commissions could be arranged must know that all the information essential is already in this country. Some of that information is of a startling character. There is the case of the ex-Master Cutler of Sheffield. While all credit is due to the ex-Master
Cutler and his colleagues, and, indeed, to all those business men who have gone abroad on long journeys to undertake these difficult investigations, the fact remains that the Department itself has always had a great mass of prejudices and obstacles to overcome. On the first page of the report of the ex-Master Cutler of Sheffield on the situation in South America there is a statement that in 16 years no responsible representative of the Sheffield cutlery trades or the lighter steel industries has been in South America. In such circumstances, who can be said to be responsible for the present condition of our trade?
Take the case of the economic mission to South Africa. Lord Kirkley reported—I believe it is in the official report, but at least I heard him make the statement—that though there are 10,000,000 of the negroid peoples under the British flag in the Union of South Africa and in the two Rhodesias, British textiles manufacturers do not appear yet to have discovered their existence, nor the fact that they have collectively a great potential purchasing power. On the other hand, the textile manufacturers of the United States, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and even Japan, have been doing a substantial trade with those natives under the British flag for the past five or six years.
We have had some references to-night to the question of trade with Russia. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) was challenged by the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire (Major Wood) to state whether it was the policy of the Conservative party to break off trading relations with Russia. That is a question to which this committee and the country are entitled to have a plain and straight answer. Figures have been quoted, and I have taken out some figures from the only source available, the returns of the Board of Trade. There can be only two or three arguments put forward by those who have this anti-Russian bias, which is in essence a political bias. If they say that because the trade returns show that there is a balance of trade against this country we ought not to trade with Russia, I want to ask what they will do in the case of these other countries. The Argentine Republic has a balance of trade in her favour and against us of £31,000,000.
Is it therefore proposed to cease trading operations with that great country, where we have £600,000,000 of capital invested? Is it proposed that we should cease trade with Belgium, which has a trade balance favourable to her of £16,398,000; with Cuba, which has a trade balance favourable to her of £5,555,000; or with Holland, which has a favourable trade balance of £6,637,000? A good many of the Dutch products come from countries where forced labour is accepted as the normal condition of things and has been officially notified to the League of Nations by the Dutch Government itself. Lastly, I would quote the case of Denmark, which has a trade balance favourable to her and against us of £43,228,000. Is it proposed, on the question of trade balance, to cease trade with Denmark? If the trade balance argument is regarded as so effective, is it suggested that countries like Brazil, Venezuela and others are entitled to use it against this country because we export to them goods of a far greater value than we import from them?
When they come down to economics, the Conservative party have to learn one rule, that "You cannot have it both ways" or, as the gentlemen on the racecourse would say, "A bob each way." If a trade balance against this country be a reason for ceasing trading operations with Russia, then hon. Members opposite wall not object if Brazil, Venezuela and other countries use the same argument in favour of ceasing to import goods from this country. If the Conservative party base their argument against trading with Russia on the ground of morality, I must say that I have yet to learn, from my study of the overseas trade of this country, that considerations of morality, religion, politics or civilisation have ever dictated to what country or to what people we should sell our goods. I think the history of the Indian frontier wars will show quite clearly that the majority of British officers and men killed or wounded on that frontier have been so killed or wounded by British bullets fired from British rifles made in Birmingham. Under those conditions we are trading with almost every country under the sun. At one time the whole of the Siberian mining industry was conducted by exile labour, and this country very gladly bought gold and silver and
other products which they produced, and no argument was raised at that time about the morality of trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no morality in trade!"]
We have traded with the South Pacific Islands, and we have sold cooking-pots to the cannibals, and with part of the profits we have financed missionaries who in many cases have ended their careers in the pots. I have not heard any question about the morality of the trade we do with savages and cannibals. When the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone talks about the morality of trade, if he wishes to take this high moral standpoint, he had better look at those instances where all the facts he mentions are beyond dispute in such places as the Dutch East Indies and the Belgian Congo. One of the complaints of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone was that the Minister was not in a position to question the state of things in Russia, but the hon. and gallant Member can secure all the enlightenment he requires from certain documents in the Library containing particulars published by the International Labour Office. There he will find a documented statement in a report issued by the Netherlands Government in 1926 showing that there were no fewer than 801,000 natives working under compulsory labour conditions, and that statement applies to those countries from which we were importing £23,000,000 worth of produce.
This country has got in its possession, through the enterprise and whole-hearted zeal of the Department of Overseas Trade, all the vital information necessary for the development of our trading interests, and we know all the factors which have been responsible for the falling off of our foreign trade. The problem remains, how are we to get action and reaction from the manufacturers and industrialists in this country? Up to the present moment there seems to have been no practical result from the expenditure of State money, from all the energy which the Overseas Department has put forward, and all the self-sacrifice which business men have themselves given. What is to be done now I fail to see, and I should be out of order if I gave the one remedy
which occurs to me. I would like to say, if I may, that if it is incumbent upon the State to spend money to organise investigations though those investigations should be conducted by industrialists themselves; if the obligation be upon us to get them together in order to organise and conduct trade, then, in my humble judgment, the State might go the whole hog and introduce State trading.

Mr. GILLETT: As there is another Vote to be taken this evening, I think it would be as well if I briefly replied to a few of the points which have been raised in the discussion. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. H. Gibson) referred to the question of the costs of production. I regret very much that in certain quarters the recommendations which have been made in regard to dealing with the question of price have at once been taken as an argument in favour of the reduction of wages. I do not want it to be thought that that is the view necessarily taken by a number of those connected with the Committees of Investigation. I was rather surprised the other day when talking to a gentleman who is very well qualified to express an opinion on one of our leading industries, to hear him say that the industry, although suffering very heavily at the present time, could easily be placed on a sound footing without, any reduction in wages taking place.
A year ago when we were considering the overseas trade position, one of the matters which struck me forcibly in the figures showing where we had been losing ground was that we have lost ground to the United States of America, a country where they pay a very high standard of wages. That is a fact which we have always to bear in mind when we are considering this problem. Reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Rethnal Green (Major Nathan) to the posts in Colombia and Denmark. I understand the fact is that in Denmark we have a consul-general, and that he is carrying out the work of a commercial councillor. His salary appears on the Vote for the Foreign Office, and the only item in this Estimate is for his assistant. The sum paid in the case of Colombia does not mean that it is entirely the salary of one official, because he has to provide clerks to assist him.
With regard to the staff of the Overseas Trade Department as compared with the commercial department of the United States, the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green does not appear to have clearly understood my figures. The figures I gave were compared with 164 in the United States, and when we take the bases at which these representatives are stationed, we have 48 and the United States 58. There was one matter on which I entirely disagreed with him, and that was in regard to his suggestion that possibly the Overseas Trade Department might be amalgamated with the Empire Marketing Board. I should like to point out to him that the Empire Marketing Board has been constituted to promote the trade of the Empire, and that the other countries in the Empire, Canada certainly, have their own organisations for promoting their own trade; and, however friendly our relations with the Dominions may be, we have to recognise that each country has after all to consider its own outlook. It seems to me to be essential that, while we should all unite in certain general movements, each country should have its own Department, interested alone in its own special industries.
The hon. Member asked, with regard to the Buenos Ayres Exhibition, what we were proposing to do with regard to following up the results of that exhibition. The head of the section in the Overseas Trade Department especially connected with South America was sent out to the exhibition, and he is still at the present time visiting one or two other countries in South America. When he comes back to this country, we propose to use the information which he has obtained there and the information which we shall receive when our other representatives come back to London, to follow up the different problems that have been raised in connection with the exhibition. I was also interested to hear the hon. Member's suggestion of regional councils, and I will gladly consider the matter in conjunction with him.
I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), a predecessor of mine at the Overseas Trade Department. He asked me first of all whether any representatives of the trade union movement had been connected with the Development
Council, and I should like to let him know that three such members at least have been closely connected with it. The hon. Member then made reference to the question of freights, and referred to the matter of the Suez Canal rates, which, however, was ruled out of order. I referred in my speech to the general question of freights because the matter had been brought out in two or three reports, and we hope to follow it up in connection with the shipping industry. The hon. Member then transferred his remarks to the Anglo-French Treaty, and, seeing that he has occupied the position which I now occupy, I was somewhat amused that he was not aware that in making those remarks he was entirely out of order, because he was talking about certain duties that fall to my lot as an Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade. Having made that statement, I hasten to pass on before I am called to order. If the hon. Member were here, I would assure him that when as an Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade I take this matter up I shall certainly bear in mind the suggestions that he has made.
9.0 p.m.
Then we had an interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who so constantly brings before us the problem of Russia. He asked when the House was going to have a report on Russia. I expect that by now he is well aware how varied and different are the reports that we receive on this subject. It was with some interest that I looked at the report, which I expect other Members of the House received to-day, on Russian timber—a statement on Russian timber issued by the Special Committee of the Timber Trade Federation of the United Kingdom. There I found that, as always happens, what is stated by one person is absolutely contradicted by another. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) pointed out that the figure of 60,000 prisoners referred to two small camps, but it is now pointed out that there could not possibly be camps of that size. Another interesting remark made by the same right hon. Gentleman was that ships were being loaded at Archangel, and about 500 prisoners were employed for loading each ship. This association, which I presume is one of
business men connected with the timber trade, goes on to state that at the outside not more than about 60 or 70 men would be required to load each ship. I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone to this interesting document as showing how difficult it is to arrive at any true facts and statements about this very difficult problem. I have been reading and receiving information from all quarters during the last 18 months, and I confess that to-day I still find it very difficult to know exactly what is the true position in Russia, but I am hoping that we shall be able shortly to present some report which at any rate may satisfy the hon. and gallant Member.
With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood), I would remark—and this will account for the fact that my observations here also will be very few—that it was one of the most skilful speeches that I have ever heard in this House for ventilating a subject which was practically entirely out of order, because the whole solution of this problem, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, and as I know perfectly well, lies in what can be done by the Export Credits Department, which, however, does not form part of our discussion to-day. The hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Duncan Millar) who backed him up—I am not sure whether or not he was aware how entirely his colleague was out of order—referred to the fishing question, and hoped that I would give a long and detailed account of our action in that regard. I can only assure him that I could not venture to do so, as I should be out of order—

Mr. MILLAR: I raised a separate point altogether. I asked what steps the Department had taken to secure information with regard to other markets for cured herrings, and reminded the hon. Gentleman that a questionnaire had been sent out by the Fishery Board through his Department.

Mr. GILLETT: I rather believe that the hon. and learned Member is now wandering away into the sphere of the Ministry of Agriculture, but I will certainly look into the matter, as my Department would be concerned with the export of herrings.

Mr. MILLAR: It was your Department.

Mr. GILLETT: It may be that some side of my Department was concerned with the matter—

Major WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that this matter is entirely a question of export credits? Is there no other question involved?

Mr. GILLETT: I think that the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member is. Certainly the action that I have been taking in regard to it has been entirely on those lines, and I understood that that was his point.

Major WOOD: There is the question of bulk purchases.

Mr. GILLETT: Certainly, and that is being dealt with on the lines I have suggested. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) asked a question in regard to the Egyptian report. I think I mentioned, however, that that report is not yet published; I am hoping that it will appear within the next week or 10 days. The hon. Member also asked what is being done in regard to smaller investigations in the way of following up. Of course, we usually consider that the trades concerned will themselves follow up the proposals that have been brought to their notice, but I can assure the hon. Member that the officials of my Department are in constant touch with the different trades, and that we keep ourselves informed as far as possible as to what action is being taken, and see that things are done on the lines suggested by those who have visited the countries concerned.
The hon. Member also asked me a question with regard to the iron and steel trade, but I think that what he had in mind is really more the concern of the Board of Trade, which has that matter under consideration. If, however, the hon. Member should require any further information on that matter, I shall be very glad to see whether it can be procured for him. In conclusion, I should like to thank hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee for the kind references they have made to the work of the Department. As I have said, I believe that the work of the Department
can be of very great assistance to industry, and one of the things which the business men who are connected with the Overseas Development Council have urged upon me is the extreme importance of making the Department more widely known. They said, "You have the information, but people do not know that the information is there." That is one reason why I have been in different parts of the country attending meetings, in the hope that the work of the Department might be more widely known. I can only say that, if any hon. Members who have spoken so kindly of the Department can help in that direction, it will be a valuable contribution and their help will be fully appreciated by members of the Overseas Trade Department, who give such excellent service to the cause of British industry.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100,180, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."—[Note.—£49,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir JOHN SIMON: I am most grateful to my friends on these benches who have the opportunity of selecting the subjects for Debate to-day for providing some time for the discussion of a matter of importance and of urgency which has several times been the subject of question and answer in the House, but which, I think, calls for more continuous treatment, and will give an opportunity to the Under-Secretary to make a statement. I am also very grateful to the Government for co-operating, as they have done, in enabling the Debate to take place. The matter to which I should like to call attention is the present condition of the problem which has been recognised for some time past to exist in connection with children in the British Colony of Hong Kong. I think they are called mui-tsai. I will not occupy time by discussing whether technically they should be described by one term or another. The fact is that there are thousands of
little girls at Hong Kong who are in homes other than their own, and who are rendering service there under arrangements which they themselves have had nothing to do with making, and under conditions which certainly have sometimes led to the most deplorable circumstances of cruelty. I know it has been contended in some quarters that this system of mui-tsai should not be regarded as in any way analogous to slavery, and indeed some six weeks ago I read a statement by the Colonial Secretary in which he described it—I thought the description rather surprising—as the Chinese system of the adoption of young girls. The first matter I would ask the Minister to consider is whether really that description is justified, and in due course I will ask the Under-Secretary to deal with the point.
It is a system, undoubtedly, which has existed and does exist as an ancient and widespread Chinese custom, and everyone ought to recognise how very difficult it is for our Colonial authorities to get rid of it. Can it be fairly described as a system of adoption? I have made some inquiry and such study as I could, and I believe I am right when I say that those who have studied this subject with attention would be very surprised indeed at the description which Lord Passfield recently gave of it, as a Chinese system of adopting young girls. In the first place, adoption and domestic servitude are not synonymous terms. In the second place, genuine adoption in the East is a very well-known institution, but it is nearly always the adoption of boys for the purpose of perpetuating a family. There is a Cantonese pocket dictionary written in English. The author of it is an English member of the Civil Service in Hong Kong, and, if that dictionary is consulted, you will find that it has for the definition of mui-tsai "equivalent to a girl domestic slave." These mui-tsai, as I understand, are girls. They are not the subject of adoption. They are the object of purchase, and the excuse that these little girls are adopted daughters is sometimes put forward before a magistrate, but it is not an excuse which is accepted by anyone who knows the facts on the spot.
I have been looking through cuttings from Hong Kong newspapers and I find that an English magistrate who had one of these cases before him, and to whom the excuse was offered that the girl was
an adopted daughter said—this is from the "South China Morning Post" of 29th July of last year—he always held that there was no such thing as an adopted daughter, and, if he were asked to decide otherwise, he would have to know some reason why a girl had been adopted, and also that she had been treated as a daughter. No one who does what I have done, and reads the two principal Hong Kong newspapers which are printed in English, and which constantly contain references to mui-tsai, can possibly be left in any doubt that the cases which have come to the courts are cases of little children who have been acquired, and treated, it may be, kindly, or it may be unkindly, but acquired as the cheapest of cheap labour. They are often little drudges, entirely at the mercy of those who have paid for them. I am not saying this from any powers of my own, but because I have been doing my best to master, and am in a position to reproduce, the facts as they are reported in Hong Kong. I have quoted one Hong Kong paper, and I will quote another. Just at the very moment when Lord Pass-field was making his statement that this mui-tsai system is merely a Chinese system of adopting children, it happened that the "Hong Kong Daily Press" was writing a leading article on the subject. I will read a passage:
It is a curious thing that some English people who know a lot about Hong Kong should have sympathy with this form of slavery. There is no disguising the fact that a mui-tsai is a slave. She is transferred from her natural parents to another family on payment of money, and becomes the property of her purchaser, subject to the ordinary law of the land, and certain conventions about her marriage on reaching a certain age. Under British law the transaction is null and void. The girl so disposed of can return to her parents, and her parents can claim her any time they like. The purchaser acquires no rights whatever. That is the law, but law and social custom do not coincide. Many Chinese families have a mui-tsai, though at the present time it may often be declared that the girl in question is an adopted daughter…. The real as apart from the canting defence of the system is that you can get the services of a young girl (and absolute power over her person) at a dirt cheap rate. It is a good business proposition. We all know the arguments in favour of slavery and every civilised nation rejects them.
I have quoted from what, I believe, are the two principal Hong Kong newspapers
printed in English, and, in both cases, from quite a recent issue. In fact, I think I can show the Committee that these little girls are frequently the subject of a bill of sale, just as the negro slaves were subject to bills of sale in the 18th century in the West Indies and the Southern States of America. I have here both the original and the translation of such a bill of sale. Here is the Chinese original, and I have done my best to make sure that it is properly translated. I do not suppose that there are many Members in this Committee who could check it, but there it is. I am going to read to the Committee the translation of this document, and we will see whether it is as an adopted daughter or not. I have every name here, and, of course, they are available to the Committee if it is desired. This is a deed of sale entered into at the end of the year 1929 by the parents of a little girl whose name is given, and they say that they are the
joint makers of this deed for the sale of our daughter. Being in need of funds, I have consulted with my wife to sell our young daughter …. 
the little girl's name is given—
aged 9, born on the 13th day of 12th moon "—
which, I am told, according to our reckoning, is the 21st January, 1921. If there is any Member now sitting in this Committee who has in his own family a child of that age or a grandchild, he will know why some people condemn such an adoption as this. She is sold through the intermediary of an agent, whose name is given—Ho Kwai Tse—to a woman, whose name is given, residing at a particular address in Hong Kong, and the document goes on:
who agreed to have her and subsequently paid him the purchase price of 110 dollars Hong Kong currency, including remuneration to the middleman.
Anybody who has ever studied the history of slave trading transactions in the century before last knows very well the part that the middleman played. This transaction, it goes on to say, was mutually agreed to and completed in the presence of the three parties. I ask hon. Members to observe who are the three parties, the sellers of the child, the purchaser, and the middleman. But the little girl is not a party to the transaction
at all; and it was not for the purpose of settling debts or any other account. The girl was handed over to the purchaser, and the deed goes on:
who shall have the right to change her name. In case of any misfortune, each party shall acquiesce in Heaven's decree. Should there be any mystery as to the origin of the girl or she may desert home with her mother, the intermediary is held responsible to search for the girl and restore her to the owner without fail. To avoid any the unreliability of a verbal promise, this deed is made as proof.
It is then executed by the parties. That is not, to my knowledge, an isolated transaction. You will observe that it is quite modern in date, because it bears the date of 4th October, 1929. But in reading through the Hong Kong papers of the last year or two, I am in a position to inform the Committee of the sort of price that prevails when you deal with somebody for a little girl of this sort. Here is a case where the price was 141 dollars, another where it was 150 dollars, and another where it was 145 dollars, and a fourth where it was 120 dollars. There is a case in which there were three girls, one sold for 80 dollars, one for 130 dollars, and the third for 150 dollars, and the child parted with for 150 dollars was resold for 300 dollars. Everyone of those cases has happened, as I can show from those papers, within the last two or three years. I would ask the Committee to observe how serious this is if the excuse is to be that this is a mere form of adoption. The price is paid to the so-called seller. The girl gets nothing whatever. There is an intermediary or a middleman, who, apparently, is engaged in the transaction, because I have a second photograph which, translated, says the same thing. No consent from the girl is needed or given, and all these provisions about the rights to change her name and the selling of the poor thing, as you say when selling a horse, with all faults, quite plainly show that the excuse that it is nothing more than an Oriental system of adoption is a very poor excuse indeed.

Mr. SANDHAM: Has it only happened during the last two or three years?

Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid that is not so. It has gone on for a long time. It has been known for a very long time that cases of this sort have been happening, and I wish to make it plain to the Com-
mittee that the Colonial Office, not only in the past, but more particularly in the present, have made unquestionably strenuous efforts to improve the matter. The last purpose to which I wish this Debate to be put is merely to hold up officials, who are doing their best, to attack, but I do think that if the real facts were realised by Members in the House of Commons and members of the public in the country, we should do much to strengthen the hands of the authorities who, I am sure, would wish to deal with the matter effectively.
The hon. Gentleman opposite asked if these cases had only happened recently. Not at all. Hong Kong has been a British colony since 1841. It did not happen to be a British colony at the time Wilberforce was alive, but it has been a British colony since 1841. And let it be recognised by everybody how difficult it is when you are dealing with a British Crown Colony very close to China, with a population nine-tenths of which is Chinese, how very difficult it is to eradicate a system which, unquestionably, is based on a very ancient and deep-seated Chinese custom. A number of efforts have been made to do it. In 1923, there was passed an ordinance, a law in Hong Kong called the Female Domestic Servant Ordinance. It was supposed to prohibit any transfer of a mui-tsai to another person henceforth, and therefore it was hoped that in time the thing would die out as the children grew up and passed away from the service.
The Colonial Office has made considerable efforts at different times in the last eight or nine years to bring the system to an end, or, at any rate, to mitigate its worst results. I find it quite impossible—and this is the first point I wish to submit to the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary—to accept the view which was put forward six weeks ago with authority, that we are dealing here with a mere system of adoption, or, indeed, that what has yet been accomplished is really adequate. Nearly every mail from Hong Kong brings me additional material, and only yesterday there reached my hands a paper from Hong Kong, the "Weekly Press," of 2nd April, which I have here, and which contains a report of a case before the magistrate in the central police court on the previous Tuesday. It is the case of the sale of a child for 63 dollars. The case had come to light because it was
alleged she had been ill-treated by her mistress. All this shows that we really are faced with a system, no doubt very deep-seated and difficult to eradicate, which cannot possibly be excused by describing it as a system of adoption. In this particular case, the court fined the woman 150 dollars, or six weeks in default. The child was an unregistered mui-tsai, and the magistrate said the father did not deserve to have the child back, and should consider himself lucky that he was not charged with aiding and abetting. I cannot find in the report what was done with the child.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: What is the value of the Hong Kong dollar?

Sir J. SIMON: It is about two shillings. I submit, therefore, that it is clearly established by the contents of the Hong Kong papers and these documents which record transactions of sales, that in spite of the efforts made—and I am very glad to acknowledge them—this horrible system still exists. An hon. Member has inquired how far it is novel. It is very far from being novel. A former Chief Justice in Hong Kong, a very distinguished man in the law, 50 years ago denounced the system as involving slavery. When the late Lord Kimberley was Colonial Secretary, he wrote a dispatch which, as far as I am able to trace, did not produce at that time, nor has it since, any very effective results. Public opinion, naturally enough, gets attracted by other things, and there has not been a Debate on this subject in the House of Commons until now for a very long time past. Ten years ago a very determined effort was made to arouse public opinion on this matter by the courageous action of a naval officer and his wife who were out there.
In 1922, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was Colonial Secretary, he wrote a despatch, which has been published in the White Paper, declaring he was not at all satisfied that it was possible to justify this system to Parliament, and giving instructions to the Governor there that he expected the system to be abolished within a year. That is why the Female Domestic Service Ordinance was passed, which appeared,
on the face of it, to be a very effective document. It declared that no person should thereafter take into his employment any mui-tsai; no person should take into his service any girl, whether mui-tsai or not, under the age of 10 years, and that no transfer of existing mui-tsai from one employer to another was to be permitted.
The instances I have quoted will, I think, satisfy the Committee that most unhappily the situation, as left after 1923, did not clear up the trouble. It is greatly to the credit of those who are now in charge of the Colonial Office that they determined to take more vigorous action. The Ordinance of 1923 contained a third part which made it possible for regulations to be made for the registration of mui-tsai, for keeping the register up-to-date and for securing remuneration—for the little girls are not paid—and for inspection and control. That was the point at which the present Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Office took the matter up. The Colonial Secretary wrote a despatch in August, 1929, addressed to the Governor, in which he called attention to the failure of previous attempts to put an end to the system. I will read two short sentences from Lord Passfield:
It now appears that after six years from the passing of the Ordinance, the most that can be said is that there is no reason to believe that the number of mui-tsai in the colony has increased.
Later on he says:
After making all allowances for the difficulties in bringing the system to an end, which are described at length in your despatches, it is my duty to inform you that public opinion in this country and in the House of Commons will not accept such a result with equanimity, and that I feel myself quite unable to defend a policy of laissez faire in this serious matter.
I am sure we must all heartily support the view taken by the Colonial Secretary. He, therefore, directed that this third part of the Ordinance should be brought into force forthwith. It is particularly important—not as a matter of criticism or reproach, but of ascertaining the facts and, if we can, of strengthening the Government's hand—to ascertain how far Lord Passfield's directions have, in fact, been complied with. Let the Committee observe that this is a Crown Colony. It is a spot of earth for which we in this House, and Ministers on that
bench are directly responsible. It is not a case, such as you may have in various parts of the world, where you hand over all responsibility to others. We are responsible. Lord Passfield went on to say in his despatch—and particular attention should be paid to these words—
You should at once proceed to make Regulations under Section 12 of the Ordinance for the keeping of the Registers, for the remuneration of mui-tsai and for their inspection and control.
It must be obvious that mere regulations without a systematic register, and without the homes of the people being to some extent supervised, are very likely to be a dead letter. The Colonial Secretary said further:
It will be doubtless necessary for you to appoint additional officers in the Department of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs to carry out the work of registration and inspection.
All that seems to me admirably said. The registration of the mui-tsai was accordingly ordered and, as far as I understand, it was to be completed in six months from the beginning of December, 1929, running to 1st May, 1930. For two-thirds of that six months, notwithstanding the regulations, very little seems to have been done, and I see from the first report made by the Governor that in that period down to the beginning of April last less than 300 registrations had taken place out of many thousands. It would certainly appear—and I think there are many indications of it in the White Paper—that at one time some, at any rate, of the officials concerned had no enthusiasm for the remedy proposed. There is one circumstance to which I must call the attention of the Committee. Not the present Governor but the former Governor, shortly after Lord Passfield had given instructions for registration, used this language in a public speech in Hong Kong:
I do not myself believe that registration of mui-tsai will, to any great extent, improve their position.
It is very unfortunate, at a time when the Colonial Office was directing that this should be done, that that should be the language used by a gentleman then holding the supreme position as representing the Government in that Colony. Of course, it is easy to understand that registration, by itself, would be of very
little use if no serious efforts were made to make the registers complete, and if, notwithstanding Lord Passfield's direction, no effective provisions were made for inspection and control. I cannot see how a system of registration in such a place as that is likely to be effective if you merely proclaim it and prosecute someone who breaks the law, but otherwise leave it alone. I have had sent to me a letter, on Colonial Office paper from Downing Street, dated the 8th April of this year, little more than a month ago, in which it is officially stated:
With reference to your letter on the subject of mui-tsai, I am directed by Lord Pass-field to inform you that no inspectors or additional police officers have been appointed by the Hong Kong Government with the special duty of seeing that local laws and Regulations on the subject of mui-tsai are carried out.
I would ask the Under-Secretary—we desire to support the policy of the Colonial Office in making the law effective—whether that letter is accurate and that it is the case that, notwithstanding that Lord Passfield's own despatch declared that it would be necessary to appoint such officers specially for this purpose, there is no inspectorate. If so, it would appear to be in flat contradiction to the declared intention of the Colonial Office.
That leads me to the last point, and I apologise for having kept the Committee so long. What are the numbers involved? Here, again, I am much surprised to read some of the statements that have been made. It has been more than once said that the number of mui-tsai was something close upon 10,000. In a recent official publication it is suggested that that was a mere guess and that the number that have been registered, which is only 4,117, substantially represent all that there are. If 4,117 little children are subject to conditions of sale, it is quite enough, but those who make that statement do not seem to know where the 10,000 come from. It is not a guess. It is not the exaggeration of some enthusiastic private person. A question was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) to the Colonial Office in this House, in 1922, when the predecessor of the present Under-Secretary, Lord Irwin, held the position. The statement was then made that the number of mui-tsai
was between 8,000 and 9,000. I believe that if the census of Hong Kong had been looked into it would be found that that is in accordance with the number in the census.
More than that, in a White Paper there is a despatch from the Governor enclosing another document and that other document shows that the chairman of the anti-mui-tsai society of Hong-Kong—a society which contains Chinese as well as British citizens, the chairman himself is Chinese—at the annual meeting of the society gave the estimate of 10,000 as about right in 1928. Notwithstanding, we have on the register only 4,017. Why? I would ask the Under-Secretary, if he would be good enough, to tell the Committee. Is there any real, solid reason for supposing that that is the full number, or is the real reason that you are here dealing with people many of whom are ignorant, many of whom cannot read? You are certainly concerning yourself with little children who are quite incapable of acting for themselves. Is it not extremely probable that there are very large numbers of mui-tsai who have not been registered? The Hong Kong papers are full of cases of brutal cruelty, where one finds that the child is not registered and therefore the mistress may be prosecuted. There are quite a number of cases of that sort.
I would urge upon the Colonial Office the great importance of supplementing their excellent decision for registration by a more effective and full inspectorate. I think I have shown that the object I have in view is not merely to blame or to reproach people. One can well understand how extremely difficult it must be to get rid of this system, but it is a system which is a scandal, and a scandal which no British subject can justify, however difficult it may be to deal with it.

Mr. SANDHAM: Even a Liberal Government!

Sir J. SIMON: Any Government. I do not draw any difference between one and another. On a subject like this, on which we feel deeply, there is no question of party. Nothing would give me greater satisfaction, unstinted satisfaction, than to be able to stand up in this House at
a later date and to acknowledge, as I would gladly do, that as a result of our discussion to-night some real further improvement had been effected. I must call attention to the fact that when the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) put a supplementary question to the Under-Secretary, basing himself on some information that he had received, the Under-Secretary—I realise that it was a supplementary question—said that he was content with what had been already done. I think it was one of those cases where a supplementary question was answered perhaps a little clumsily. I do not think that the Under-Secretary is content with what has been done. I am quite satisfied that he desires, as we all desire, to use public opinion in this country in support of a very necessary reform.
If the facts are what I have put to the Committee, and I would ask the Committee to observe that every one of them is based either on an official document or on the public newspapers of Hong Kong, it is impossible for the House of Commons to declare itself contented with what has been done. We earnestly desire to assure the Under-Secretary that if the Colonial Office, instead of taking up an attitude of complacency, will insist on more effective measures being taken, they will have the support of the whole House of Commons and widespread public opinion. Here we are dealing with a Crown Colony, and the House of Commons and the Government of the day have the real responsibility. I can well believe that devoted officers out there in the East, living year after year in the midst of these Oriental customs, which come down from a very ancient civilisation, sometimes despair of getting these practices altered. I do not reproach them or blame them, because they are not able to act unaided, but there is an instrument which we can bring to their aid, and that is the view of the House of Commons and the force of public opinion in this country.
The matter may be regarded in a much wider aspect than that. It is had enough to think that in a British Colony there should be some thousands of little children who are the subject of documents such as I have read, but please observe that we are not now living in an age in which this subject is a matter of merely
national interest. The new international movement for promoting and securing anti-slavery is as much a movement in which Britain has taken the lead as was the movement in which Britain took the lead 120 or 130 years ago in the time of Wilberforce. It was British statesmen of all parties, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), the present Foreign Secretary, Lord Cecil and others who took the lead at Geneva. What has happened? An Anti-Slavery Convention has been drawn up and signed by 30 or 40 States, and this autumn, in September, at Geneva it is hoped to be able to establish a permanent bureau in order to review and get control of what remains of slavery in the world.
We Britons have a perfect right to claim that in many respects we have shown a bold lead. Within the last few-years a former Colonial Secretary was instrumental in getitng rid of the remains of slavery in Sierra Leone, and a very distinguished Governor of the province of Burma swept away slavery in the recesses of that great country. We all have in mind the inquiry about Liberia, but if we want to take the first place, and our proper place, as the leaders of opinion we must be prepared to do what we can to stamp out anything which is in conflict with our convictions in places where we are responsible. I am not one who takes any pleasure in making adverse comments about the British administrator. His difficulties are far greater than we sitting here in comfort can realise. I am not seeking to reproach or blame the Colonial Office because it has not been able to secure a great reform at incredible speed, but this is an opportunity, which I greatly value, of asking the House of Commons, and as far as I can public opinion throughout the country, to bring the whole of its power and influence to support the Colonial Office in making a clean sweep of this abominable system.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): In the first place I should like to say that I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for his courtesy in suiting my convenience as to the time of raising this matter and for having given me notice of his main points. In view of
the many inaccurate statements and misrepresentations which have been made about mui-tsai in Hong Kong, I am glad of an opportunity of dealing with the matter to-night. I agree that it is very important, and I hope to show that we have realised its importance and that my answer to the supplementary question was justified. Some of the statements that have been made have been very embarrassing to some hon. Members whose constituents have been alarmed at what they have been told. A serious injustice has been done to the Hong Kong Government and to the Home Government by the allegations, in speeches and in letters to the Press, that at the present time there is a system of child slavery in Hong Kong and that the Hong Kong Government and the Home Government are tolerant of the system and are taking no effective steps to deal with it. I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Member say that he believed the Government were doing their best, but, obviously, the right hon. and learned Member is unaware of the actual position in Hong Kong, and of what the Government have done.
It is common ground, as the right hon. and learned Member has told us, that the employment of mui-tsai is an old-established and widespread custom in China and deeply rooted in Chinese family and economic life. Chinese public opinion expects their employers to see that they are married or suitably provided for when they are about 18 years of age, but as the custom meant that young female children were placed as domestic servants in the houses of employers who had paid money for them to their parents or guardians, it was obviously one which was repugnant to British ideas and steps were taken to abolish it in Hong Kong. In February, 1923, an Ordinance called the Female Domestic Service Ordinance was passed. The first part of that Ordinance declared that no rights of property in a female child could be conferred on a third person by payment to the parents or guardians of the child. This point must have been overlooked by those who justify their allegation of slavery in the belief that a right of property in such children is preserved in the statutes of Hong Kong.
The second part of this Ordinance, among other things, provided that no person should hereafter take into his emp-
loyment any mui-tsai or transfer any existing mui-tsai from one employer to another. It is clear—and this is a point bearing on the question of the numbers—that the effect of these provisions would be a steady decrease in the numbers of mui-tsai.
These two parts of the Ordinance were put into operation in 1923, but, as the right hon. and learned Member truly says, they were not fully effective in dealing with the problem. That is quite true. Part 3 of the Ordinance, which is really the important part from the point of view of the abolition of the practice as it provides for the registration, inspection and control of mui-tsai, was not put into operation in view of the representations of the then Governor of Hong Kong as to the possible and probable opposition from the Chinese population to it. But when the Labour Government came in my Noble Friend, in August, 1929, directed the Governor of Hong Kong to bring this third part of the Ordinance into operation forthwith. The Governor was further directed to take special care to inform the population generally that this third part of the Ordinance was in force, and that it would not be allowed to be a dead-letter. My Noble Friend further instructed the Governor that Part 2 of the Ordinance should be amended so as to make certain that no mui-tsai should be brought into the Colony—and this again affects the question of present-day numbers. My Noble Friend also intimated that he was not prepared to acquiesce in a mere nominal enforcement of the law, and that any offence was to be made the subject of prosecution without regard to the position of the offender.
In November, 1929, and it will be noticed that this was just after the date of the bill of sale which the right hon. and learned Member mentioned, the Governor-in-Council made regulations under the Ordinance providing for the registration, remuneration and supervision of mui-tsai.

Sir J. SIMON: Was there any regulation about inspection?

Dr. SHIELS: I am not sure whether there was any specific paragraph in the regulations issued dealing with that matter, but I am coming to the question of inspection in a moment or two. Before going on to say how the law is
working out and what has been done under it, I want to point out what it is very important to remember, and that is, the difficulties which the Hong Kong Government have to face in putting into force legislation of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to that, but I do not think he quite stated the whole position. We must remember that Hong Kong is a small island off the South-east coast of China, 11 miles long and two to five miles broad. In addition, the British Colony of Hong Kong includes the city of Kowloon and leased territory on the mainland of China of about 345 square miles. The total civil population is about 1,150,000, all except about 30,000 of Chinese race. Of that population about 600,000 are concentrated in the island of Hong Kong, about 300,000 in the city of Kowloon, and over 100,000 live on junks and sampans in the harbour. The ferries running between the island and the mainland transport over 33,000,000 passengers every year, and the daily ebb and flow of population between Hong Kong and China is estimated at about 6,000 each way.
The mui-tsai custom is widespread in the Chinese provinces adjacent to Hong Kong, and the difficulties of bringing home to the large population, mainly illiterate and of a largely changing character, that the Hong Kong Government was determined to stamp out the mui-tsai system were formidable. Nevertheless, by putting all the machinery at the disposal of the Hong Kong Government into operation, and by enlisting the co-operation of the educated and leading members of the Chinese population, a highly creditable measure of success has been achieved. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there were six months from 1st December, 1929, in which all mui-tsai in Hong Kong had to be brought before the authorities and registered. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that in the first four months, despite the publication of full details in the vernacular Press, fewer than 300 were brought up for registration. Efforts were then redoubled, many thousands of circulars were distributed, the consequences of failure were pointed out, and by the end of the six months 4,183 had been registered; 116 were registered subsequently, bringing the total number registered up to 4,299.
In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I believe that there are good grounds for believing that registration was practically complete. I shall deal later with the allegation that a large number of mui-tsai have not been registered. The Governor was instructed to furnish a report every six months on the working of the Ordinance. The first report, covering the first period of six months since the completion of registration, is available in the Library of the House, and shows encouraging progress. As regards the slavery allegations, the right hon. Gentleman would not, I think, take the line that a mui-tsai in Hong Kong is now legally in the position of a slave.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that anyone would take up that position, but on the other hand I believe it would be very poor comfort to be told that because there is a law which makes it impossible that the person is a slave, therefore in fact and practice the position does not correspond to slavery. That is just about as plausible as saying that no one ever drinks intoxicants in America because there is prohibition in that country.

10.0 p.m.

Dr. SHIELS: That is so, but if the right hon. Gentleman had allowed me to continue he would have found that I quite understood that point, and that my observation was mainly preliminary to dealing with the point that he has just made. I say that no one could take up the attitude that a mui-tsai is, in the first place, legally in the position of a slave. The status of slavery is illegal in Hong Kong and the Female Domestic Service Ordinance, as I have pointed out, expressly enacts that no employer has any right of ownership or custody over the mui-tsai in his employ. The employer has no remedy if she leaves him, and cannot either get back the mui-tsai or recover any payment which he may have made to the parents or guardians. It is not true either to say that the status of a mui-tsai in Hong Kong is now analogous to or in practice indistinguishable from slavery. The status has been made clear by the Ordinance and regulations to which I have referred. They have been registered; their death, or disappearance or change of address or intended marriage, must be notified to
the authorities. They must be paid wages, and it has been broadcast by means of proclamations and pamphlets that any mui-tsai who wishes to leave an employer is free to do so and may report to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs or the nearest police station if she has any difficulty. Mui-tsai, therefore, at present are neither actually nor virtually slaves, and it is inaccurate and unfair to speak of them as such. It is illegal to acquire new mui-tsai by payments to parents or guardians, or to introduce mui-tsai into the colony from abroad.
As regards the numbers of mui-tsai in Hong Kong, the only approximately reliable figures are the estimates made in the census of 1921, namely, 8,653, and the actual figures of registration in 1930, namely, 4,299. It is true that other estimates have been made, and that the chairman of the Anti-Mui-Tsai Society, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, made an estimate of 10,000 in 1928, but the Governor reported that that was merely a guess and was probably much too high. A number of Hong Kong critics, however, have never accepted this statement, and have constantly reiterated the figure of 10,000, have maintained that, as only 4,000 odd were registered, the balance must be still in Hong Kong unregistered, and that registration has therefore been a failure. There is no evidence of this at all. The anticipation that registration would be widely evaded has not been borne out by the facts, and the response of employers to the regulations has been most gratifying. The difference between the census estimate of 1921 and the actual figure of registrations in 1929 shows that the number of mui-tsai in Hong Kong declined by 50 per cent. in that period. That is a large decrease and one might have thought that the critics of the mui-tsai system in Hong Kong would have expressed appreciation of so substantial a reduction, but on the contrary they have merely made it a basis for new and unwarranted attacks and suggestions that the figures are inaccurate.
It is not surprising that the number of mui-tsai in Hong Kong should have declined by 50 per cent. in that period. Part 2 of the Ordinance came into operation in 1923, and as it prohibited any person taking into his employment any new mui-tsai, it must have caused a pro-
gressive diminution in the number. Moreover, throughout the period 1921–29 considerable propaganda was carried on against the custom both in Hong Kong and in China and, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, many progressive members of the Chinese community took part in that propaganda, and, undoubtedly, many persons must have been influenced by it to get rid of their mui-tsai. There is no doubt that when registration was enforced a number of employers returned mui-tsai to their relations, in some cases even against the will of the girls and their parents, and in other cases mui-tsai were transferred to the country homes of their employers in China. Such transference was not illegal, and could hardly in any case have been detected and prevented. There was no evidence that any of those girls were sold in China and, in any case, persons could not be prosecuted in Hong Kong for offences committed in China. The Governor's report on the first six months' period since registration shows a reduction in the number from natural causes of 182, which is equivalent to 8 per cent. per annum, and it is clear on that basis that a reduction in numbers of 50 per cent. in eight years is what might be expected. The numbers of mui-tsai in Hong Kong must now steadily diminish until finally they disappear altogether. That is the intention of what has been done by the Hong Kong Government under the direction of my Noble Friend.
As regards inspection and control—a point of which the right hon. Gentleman made a great deal—it must be remembered that legislation of this kind has some similarity to legislation for the protection of children in this country and there are several charitable societies in Hong Kong which receive financial support from the Government and employ inspectors, including lady inspectors. As the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be particularly interested in this question I hope he will be good enough to give me his attention. I was pointing out that we must remember that the practice in this country is very largely that of leaving it to charitable societies to call attention to cases of cruelty to children, and I was saying that there are several charitable societies in Hong Kong which receive financial support from the
Government and employ inspectors, including Chinese lady inspectors. These societies bring cases of suspected abuse to the notice of the Government which then takes prompt steps to investigate. Also, the Department of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, which is the responsible Department, has also been strengthened by the appointment of an additional European officer and a European police inspector is seconded to it for the special work of protecting women and girls.
All police stations report to the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs any cases concerning mui-tsai about which they receive complaints. The Secretary for Chinese Affairs immediately investigates all such reports and also all reports of a similar nature which he receives himself directly, using the European police inspector attached to his department who goes to the premises indicated and brings the parties concerned to see the Secretary for Chinese Affairs. In addition, it is proposed to appoint an inspector solely for mui-tsai inspection. The conditions of such appointment and the selection of a suitable officer are under consideration at present and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that if, in the course of the working out of these arrangements, further facilities for inspection are found to be necessary, they will not be withheld. I also wish to point out that the department dealing with this subject has been quite definitely strengthened in spite of the fact that practically every other department in the Hong Kong Government has suffered serious retrenchment.

Miss RATHBONE: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from the subject of inspection, will he tell me whether these inspectors employed by private organisations only inspect cases of reported or suspected abuses, or do they regularly inspect all registered mui-tsai?

Dr. SHIELS: They exist for the purpose of the prevention of cruelty to children and they do, I understand, make inspections. I have said that one of the inspectors is a Chinese lady inspector whose business it is to deal with these cases. I think that Members of the Committee will find that there is a considerable amount of inspection and very considerable opportunity for bringing to light any abuses that exist. Prosecutions
for bringing unregistered mui-tsai into the colony are brought on every occasion when such cases are discovered. The law is applied with absolute strictness, even though hard cases occur, as when a newcomer calling voluntarily reports to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs that he has brought a mui-tsai into the colony as a member of his household. The number of prosecutions since the closing down of registration to 1st June, 1930, is 28, 13 of which were in connection with mui-tsai newly brought into the colony. The Governor assures us that apart from these cases there is no evidence of evasion of registration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to know that we have just received word from the Governor on this subject telling us that he has personally paid a number of surprise visits to houses, taken at random, where registered mui-tsai live, and found all conditions entirely satisfactory.
Now as regards accommodation for mui-tsai who leave their employment, no difficulty has been experienced hitherto in finding all that is necessary. During the past 12 months the Salvation Army has opened a home for this purpose among others, and moreover the Government have contributed a large site on the outskirts of the city on which a new house will be erected by the Po Leung Kuk, a Chinese charitable society, which will be available for these mui-tsai. As regards the payment of wages to mui-tsai, special inquiries have recently been made on this point, and no case for prosecution has been disclosed. Investigations show that in nearly every case more than the minimum prescribed was paid.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that there has been some question about the statue of mui-tsai, and I quite agree that some confusion has arisen in speaking of mui-tsai as adopted daughters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was correct when he said that the status of the mui-tsai has no connection at all with that of an adopted daughter, which is quite distinct. That distinction is quite appreciated in Hong Kong, and the two classes are dealt with by different laws. As the law stands to-day, the onus is placed on the adopter of showing that the girl is a foster-daughter and not a
mui-tsai, while the powers of the Secretary for Chinese Affaire with regard to the guardianship of such girls are clearly set out in a different Ordinance altogether, called the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance. The Governor reports that so far there has been nothing to show that the fiction of adoption is being used to evade the obligations imposed by the laws regarding mui-teai, and that there would appear to be at the moment no necessity to take action on that particular ground.
With regard to the bills of sale, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, I would point out that under the Hong Kong Ordinance of 1923 it is illegal for anyone to take a mui-tsai into his employment or to transfer a mui-tsai to another employer, and any person in Hong Kong who had under such a bill of sale purchased or transferred a mui-tsai in Hong Kong would be prosecuted and heavily punished on discovery. To make evasion still more difficult, in 1929 the Offences Against the Person Ordinance was amended, to make it clear that even entering into such a contract or taking part in any such transaction was in itself a criminal act. That further action covered a possible loophole, and now I think we can say that every loophole for possible evasion of the mui-teai regulations has been closed. Deeds of sale, of course, are still executed in China, and before 1929, before this part of the Ordinance was put into force, at the direction of my Noble Friend, it is true that children procured as a result of such transactions in China could be subsequently imported into Hong Kong. By prohibiting the importation of mui-tsai into Hong Kong by the amending Ordinance of 1929; this possibility of evasion has been stopped.
Persons cannot of course be prosecuted in Hong Kong for offences committed in China, but any attempt to bring into or claim in Hong Kong any rights over children by virtue of such bill of sale, will entail immediate prosecution. No doubt cases of cruelty to children occur in Hong Kong, as in this country, but they are the exception, and every effort is made to have offenders severely dealt with. The Hong Kong Secretary for Chinese affairs interviewed and spoke to 4,000 mui-tsai when they were brought up for registration, and he observed that
they were well nourished and contented. We apparently still require a prevention of cruelty to children society in this country, and the recent remarks of an official of that society on the buying and selling of children in this country should prevent our taking a too self-complacent and scathing an attitude to defects elsewhere. I have here a newspaper cutting taken from the "News Chronicle" the other day, which gives a report of a baby having been bought in Winchester for 2s. and then used for begging. I am satisfied that the Hong Kong Government have taken all reasonable steps to carry out the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter of mui-tsai, and the Chinese community in Hong Kong have complied to a most satisfactory degree with the Government regulations on the subject. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the late Governor of Hong Kong, at the time my Noble Friend gave his directions, did not approve of the instructions which we gave on the matter, but surely we are not to be blamed for that, but rather to be commended for not accepting his advice. [Interruption.] I am pointing out that if the Governor was against these instructions—

DP. SALTER: Recall him, get rid of him!

Dr. SHIELS: The new Governor, before going out to take up these duties in Hong Kong, was specially seen by my Noble Friend and myself. We went very carefully into this matter with him and made it very clear what the intention of His Majesty's Government was, and we impressed on him the importance of carrying out the regulations in all thoroughness. He has paid personal surprise visits to mui-tsai homes; he assures us that the regulations are working well, and I, for one, am prepared to believe him. Let us give the present Hong Kong Government encouragement and appreciation of their efforts instead of unsympathetic criticism. Unwarranted attacks have been made on that and the home Government by various persons, who are not in a position to verify the truth of the information which they derive from what are clearly unreliable sources. I suggest therefore that before any in-
dividuals or societies accept the widespread assertions about slavery in Hong Kong at the present time, they should take steps to investigate the trustworthiness of their informants. The Labour Government is dead against slavery in all its forms. It has done in this matter of mui-tsai what other Governments failed to do. It has also taken a leading part in the drawing up at Geneva of the new Convention against Forced Labour, and has ratified that Convention for all territories under its control without taking advantage of any modification or restriction whatever. It goes further in this matter than probably, the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to go in that it is against economic slavery, and it is significant that it is the poverty of the parents which is the basis of the mui-tsai system. Even if we cannot have the support of the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the fundamental causes of poverty and their unfortunate consequences we shall hope to have his encouragement and his not unfriendly criticism in the difficulties which arise in the course of this task to which we have put our hand in Hong Kong.

Mr. AMERY: I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has done well to bring this matter before the House of Commons. As long as this House is definitely responsible for certain parts of the British Empire it is only right that we should be satisfied that the Government which is carried out under its auspices should be a Government of which we can approve and should not contain any features which we should regard as repugnant to our notions of what any Government under the Union Jack should be. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that when I was Colonial Secretary it emerged, in the course of a trial at Sierra Leone, that a status of slavery whose existence was suspected by no one in this country, was suspected by no one in the Colonial Office, and, I think, was not suspected even in the Government of Sierra Leone, did, in fact, still exist, and we had to take immediate action to put an end to that position. The situation in Hong Kong, as he very rightly pointed out, was the opposite of that. It is a situation in which no status of slavery has existed ever since Hong Kong has been British territory,
as was reaffirmed beyond any possibility of doubt in the Ordinance of 1923, but was concerned with ancient social customs immensely deep-rooted and immensely difficult to deal with. My right hon. Friend, in an interruption in the course of the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, referred to the parallel of Prohibition in the United States, in some ways a very true parallel. We can see there how difficult it is to enforce a law, even though it is supported by the strong moral conviction of a large number of people if it does not appeal to another large part of the community.
That kind of difficulty in Hong Kong was gravely accentuated by the geographical position of Hong Kong and the fact that there is a continual going to and fro by tens of thousands daily between Hong Kong and Canton, which is just up the river, and also by the peculiar circumstances of the years following 1923. They were years of unrest and disturbance all over China, and more particularly in Southern China, and during those years there was a continual and heavy exodus of Chinese refugees into Hong Kong. Under the conditions existing it was almost impossible to ascertain the exact status of the children who came in with those people. The difficulty of ascertaining who were and were not mui-tsai was, however, a small matter compared with the greater problem of knowing what to do with mui-tsai when you had traced them. A very large part came from the mainland of China, and, under the conditions of the time, it was impossible to ascertain where their parents were, if they were still alive, or in a position to keep their children and look after them if they were returned. Of course, the alternative of turning young girls into the streets of Hong Kong was unthinkable. In the circumstances of 1923, it was by no means an unreasonable thing for the Hong Kong Government to feel that the best thing it could do, while watching closely to prevent any ill-treatment or cruelty, was to see whether the mui-tsai population could not be brought to an end in a reasonably short time by preventing the creation of new mui-tsai.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has emphasised the conditions under which the transfers are made under Chinese
custom. Of course, while the transfers are habitually made at a tender age, the mui-tsai, according to Chinese custom, remain with their owners, if I may use that word, up to the age of 18 or 19, when, according to the Chinese custom, it is their duty to endeavour to secure a good marriage for them if they can do so. The mere mention of these facts, with a population of 9,000 mui-tsai, ranging from 18 to 19 years, indicates that half of them must have been of the age of 14 or over, and that every year there would be a considerable diminution, which I think has in fact occurred, and no doubt is desired by Europeans and Chinese who are just as anxious as we are for a speedy reform. It is for these reasons, and in view of the intense strength of Chinese feeling against interference in the affairs of their homes, a feeling which has in fact prevented us dealing with what I regard as a far worse evil, namely, child marriage in India, which made the Government of Hong Kong feel doubtful about putting into force Part III of the 1923 Ordinance. I should like to say that I know of no one who has been a Governor in any of our colonies in recent years who has had more sympathy, based upon profound knowledge and study and true affection for the people with whom he has had to deal, than Sir Cecil Clementi.
I am quite sure that it was no indifference to the welfare of these children and girls, and certainly no bureaucratic unwillingness to take action, but a genuine conviction as to the profound difficulties of the situation and a belief that the best results could be obtained by degrees and by enlisting Chinese opinion on the side of the Government—that that and nothing else was responsible for the counsels of delay in action which weighed with me while I was Colonial Secretary, and which to-day I think have been successfully overcome, but overcome in very large measure because one indispensable factor in the whole situation is gradually being built up. By that I mean the support of educated Chinese opinion. You have to-day what you certainly had not eight or nine years ago—a very large body of Chinese opinion, not only in Hong Kong, but in China, which is recognising that the system is a scandal and ought to be
brought to an end, and which as supporting the Government in what they are doing in Hong Kong to-day. It is by appealing to that sentiment, by enlisting it on our side, that I believe that to-day we can feel that, however difficult the situation has been, however serious the obstacles, we have reached a stage where action can be progressively rapid and effective. I unreservedly congratulate the Government on what they have been able to do so far, and I would equally unreservedly join in expressing the hope that their action may be increasingly effective in the future.

Miss PICTON - TURBERVILL: I think the Committee owes a deep debt of gratitude to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for his speech to-night on the subject of mui-tsai; but the feeling is, perhaps, mixed with one of profound disappointment that such a speech could have been made after 10 years' Debate almost every year on this subject in the House of Commons. The Under-Secretary began his speech with a reference to inaccurate statements and allegations. I think that every one who is interested in this subject will regret any inaccurate statements or any exaggerations; but the hon. Gentleman was replying to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, and I do not think that the right hon. and learned Member made a single statement in his long speech which was not substantiated and thoroughly well documented. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to find that I have the approval of hon. Members in regretting that the opening speech of the Under-Secretary should have contained references to inaccurate statements when his speech was a reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley. The Under-Secretary proceeded to quote continuously from the Ordinance which was passed in 1923; but the very fact that that Ordinance has remained a dead letter, and that Lord Passfield himself two years ago said that it had remained a dead letter for six years, surely, to a certain extent, must rob some of the reply that we have received of its weight and value. Lord Passfield, writing in August, 1926, said:
It appears that, after six years from the passing of the Ordinance, the most that can
be said is that there is no reason to believe that the number of mui-tsai has increased.
Lord Passfield himself was not content with the working of that Ordinance, and everyone knows that it was a dead letter. With regard to the question of inspectors, Lord Passfield says:
It will be necessary for you to appoint inspectors,
That is to say, that they should be officially appointed by the Government, not that the Government should rely on philanthropic bodies to do this important work. We are, however, assured by the words of the Under-Secretary that now an inspector will be officially appointed, but the fact that Lord Passfield in his letter two years ago gave instructions that the Governor himself should appoint an inspector shows that the inspection has been a dead letter. I think we are justified in asking for a categorical reply. Are mui-tsai sold to-day or not? Do they get wages for the work they are doing or not? The Under-Secretary spoke of the great difficulties. I do not think anyone would wish to make little of those difficulties. Yet he went on to say the employers were now putting no difficulties in their way. It seemed almost as if one statement contradicted the other.
I could not help smiling when we heard that the Governor himself went to inspect the mui-tsais' homes. It was almost as though the Lord Mayor went to inspect factories. I should not think much of a factory manager if he could not throw a little dust in the Lord Mayor's eyes. The fact that the Governor of Hong Kong went to inspect mui-tsais' homes made me think that the inspection was probably not very perfect. I have read the Governor's reports very carefully and what troubles me was that they were so extraordinarily complacent. They said the girls were fairly well treated, but that is not the point. We want to know whether they are virtually slaves or not. Slaves were often well treated. The letters of the Governor refer continually to the fact that they are not so ill treated as some people suppose and that many of them are well treated. I had not made up my mind to take part in this Debate, but it is the complacency of the report that troubles us. We do not deny that a great deal has been done, but we are immoveably persuaded that a great deal
more could be done to put an end to this evil

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The hon. Lady says what troubled her most was the complacency of the reports. What troubles me most is the complacency of the Under-Secretary. My right hon. Friend's speech was a perfect model of moderation, clarity and accuracy. I have been a long time in the House and I have never heard a better chance given by anyone who spoke on a subject of this kind to a Minister to give an answer of the kind that the majority of the Committee expected him to give. I never saw a more complete failure. I am sorry to speak as strongly as this, but I feel strongly. I had not the slightest intention of taking any part in the Debate when I came into the House, but those who listened to my right hon. Friend's speech, to whatever party they belonged, were moved by his recital of those terrible facts, all the more forcible because they concealed things which he did not mention. They must have felt in their hearts that, whatever may be the moral convictions of the Chinese, whatever may the difficulties of the Governor, whatever may be the feelings of those who know how difficult it is for Governors to act under exceptionally difficult conditions, the feeling of the Committee—I am sure I speak it—is that this thing must stop. Complacent statements by Under-Secretaries will not stop the rising tide of public opinion in this country which has been deeply moved, as I believe the Committee has been to-night, and is determined that mere official answers, such as we have received, will in no way prevent proper, definite, swift action.
What is happening in Hong Kong today? We know that there are thousands of these children living in conditions of slavery. I do not mind if the Under-Secretary gives dozens of official reports from Governors. The real answer is contained in those daily papers. I will read again what the "Hong Kong Daily Press" says. The date is 23rd March, 1931, not more than six weeks ago. It says:
It is a curious thing that some English people who know a lot about Hong Kong should have sympathy with this form of slavery. There is no disguising the fact that the mui-tsai is a slave. She is transferred from her natural parents to another family
on payment of money, and becomes the property of her purchaser, subject to the ordinary law of the land, and certain conventions about her marriage on reaching a certain age. Under British law the transaction is null and void.
As the Under-Secretary of State knows, slavery in a Crown colony is null and void, and there is nothing legal about it. It is the effect that troubles the Committee:
A girl so disposed of can return to her parents, and her parents can claim her any time they like,
and so on. That is the law. I may have wearied the Committee by repeating the quotation, but it is the essence of the whole case.
That is the law, but law and social custom do not coincide.
From what is happening in Hong Kong to-day, there is slavery.

Mr. SANDHAM: There is slavery here, and plenty of it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It says further:
The real as apart from the canting defence of the system is that you can get the services of a young girl (and absolute power over her person) at a dirt cheap rate. It is a good business proposition.
That is the fact. We all know it to be the case. Another newspaper practically confirms that view in so many words. I was informed through the "Times" the other day that the Central Government of China made a very fine attempt to abolish the whole of the system in China itself. I know that it is nothing more than a gesture, but it is a very fine one, and shows what is happening in China. What is happening in China may be the first feeble step towards freedom for millions of those slaves, and it will be mutually assisted if the real voice of the Committee and of this House is heard in Hong Kong. I repeat that it is the determination of this Committee, right through the House of Commons, and, I believe, right through the country, that in this Crown colony, which is Britain abroad, the scandal of this form of slavery ought to be stopped.

Mr. SANDHAM: What about the Black and Tans?

An HON. MEMBER: Shut up!

Mr. SANDHAM: Like you.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) to curb his remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL: We ought to be very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for having raised this matter to-night, so that we may have an opportunity of discussing it fully, instead of only by way of question and answer. The facts which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House, and which have not been contradicted in the main by the Under-Secretary, are very enlightening and very disturbing. Those of us who know China and the Chinese will realise that the Chinese, whether rightly or wrongly, are a very conservative race, and that the Governor who, it has been suggested, demurred to the instructions given to him, was doing so from his knowledge of the fact that such an edict was very difficult to bring into force in Chinese territory. He is, as we know, a man who knows the Chinese and the language of the Chinese, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady who made a speech earlier in the Debate rather laughed at the fact of a Governor taking the trouble to go and visit houses where such things take place. It is the custom of the Governor in any Colony or State to pay a visit and see things for himself. That is so with most Colonies and with most Governors. These Governors generally make a practice of learning the language of the country in which they reside, and so their visits are of great effect, and are looked upon sympathetically.

Mr. McSHANE: The point of the hon. Lady's speech was not against the Governor making inspections per se, but that they should be regarded as in some way sufficient inspections.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I am within the recollection of the Committee, and I am only suggesting that the hon. Lady was not correct in thinking that such a visit was not appreciated and was of no use, for though the Governor must have his official inspectors, he wants to know for himself exactly what is going on—the more especially as hon. Members like the right hon. Gentleman and others, including myself, have asked questions in the House. The Governor, having issued his instructions, wishes to see that they are properly carried out. I want to
emphasise that this is not a political question at all, and the less we talk about politics in a matter of this sort the better. We want to give Hong Kong the united opinion not only of this Parliament, but of this country, and we want Hong Kong to know that we look upon mui-tsai as a scandal which has to be stopped. The Government have, according to the Under-Secretary, taken strong steps to see that their instructions are carried out by the Governor and the authorities in Hong Kong. I am perfectly sure our duty to-day is to strengthen the hands of the Government by saying, speaking for the country, that we intend to see this scandal, as we call it, wiped out, and the sooner the better. A Debate of this description will be passed on to Hong Kong, and they will see that there has not been one Member in this House who has taken exception to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and they will realise that, while we have sympathy for the difficulties of the authorities in Hong Kong, we hold ourselves up as being a people who are against all forms of slavery.
Only this afternoon we had a Debate about another place where there is so-called slavery. It would not be right that while we condemn other parts of the world for slave labour, we should allow such a system to be carried on in one of our own Colonies. I have been very disturbed over the whole affair and have felt that the Government have not been strong enough in their action. The speech of the Under-Secretary had been prepared before he had heard the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, otherwise it would doubtless have been couched in other terms. We must, however, realise that the Government are as much alive to the difficulty of the position and the necessity of effecting a cure, as any of us. If that is the case, and if the Under-Secretary tells us that the Colonial Secretary is determined that the instructions which he has issued will be carried out in every detail by the authorities in Hong Kong, we can look forward to the not far distant future when the system which we all deplore will come to an end. We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for the interest that he has taken in this matter and for arousing the in-
terest of the House. Before the dinner hour the House was almost empty, and we now see it occupied by many hon. Members who are deeply interested in this subject. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary will assure us that all the instructions that have been given will be carried out.

Mr. MORRIS: One interesting fact that has been made clear in the Debate is that not a single statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley has been challenged by the Under-Secretary. In the second place, the Under Secretary has not only accepted the statements of fact but he has condemned them. The unfortunate thing was the tone of his speech. There was an absence of regret. It was the more unfortunate because, although we in this House may be able to assess the exact value of his speech, to-morrow, when it is lead in other parts of the world, the effect will be far different. It would be well if the Under-Secretary would get up and say, in terms, that he condemns no less than anyone else the system of mui-tsai. It is very unfortunate that he should have reflected upon the motives of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, because that is what he did.

Dr. SHIELS: I am surprised at the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member. I took it as a matter of course that I certainly condemn the mui-tsai system. My Noble Friend has condemned it, and we are doing everything we possibly can to end it.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Dr. MORGAN: I want to raise the question of the administration of the West Indian Islands. I have waited nearly two years for an opportunity of discussing this question, but unfortunately I have not had an opportunity, and even to-night, after having given the Under-Secretary for the Colonies notice that I wanted to raise the matter, I have not been able to do so. I want to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, as to whether I should raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House or whether I should wait for a subsequent opportunity on the Colonial Office Vote. This question has not been discussed by the House, and I have waited patiently and loyally for an opportunity of making a few observations upon a subject which is regarded by these Crown colonists as very important.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has a perfect right to raise the matter on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, when there is an opportunity. No doubt the Colonial Office Vote will come up again, and he will have another opportunity. He could have raised the matter to-night.

Dr. MORGAN: I did give notice to the Under-Secretary, but unfortunately another subject had precedence, and I have been unable to get in.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have given notice that he intended to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Dr. MORGAN: I am very sorry. I will give notice that I intend to raise the matter as soon as possible on a subsequent Motion for the Adjournment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.